 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / March 2010Latin, the Enlightenment, and science
The use of Latin in the sciences and other learned fields basically ceased in the 18th and 19th centuries. I have long wondered why people accepted the use of national languages exclusively in this endeavor where international understanding is more imperative than any other. It is true, that the use of Latin by 1700 had already passed almost everywhere else, but its last remaining use should still have been enough to support it, given that Latin was the one language that every educated man in the Western world knew, and that Latin, having such a long tradition of use, was at least suitable for scientific and technical purposes as any other language at the time. And so, some explanations suggest themselves. The first is that the predominant advocates and defenders of Latin, from the Renaissance to now, are from the humanities; and so once Latin had disappeared from live literary use, their support was no longer important. The second is to blame it on the French: they abandoned Latin earlier than anyone else, and are well-known to have an inflated view of the greatness of their own language. But that does not seem to explain how it happened everywhere else: had they wanted to emulate the French, they would have started writing in French, and if they had wanted to oppose them, they should have re-emphasised the role of Latin. Now, of course, I can't propose the revival of Latin for these purposes: English has virtually replaced it as the international scientific language. But it look a long time during which dealing with many different languages was a considerable problem, and it seems as though this should have been avoided. Andrew Usher > The use of Latin in the sciences and other learned fields basically > ceased in the 18th and 19th centuries. I have long wondered why people [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Andrew Usher Latin provided an invaluable tool for the transmission of ideas throughout Europe, not bound my the restrictions of parochial languages long before the Enlightenment. This together with the invention of printing was the way that the Reformation exploded right across Europe without the need for learning all the various languages that were still unformed. Latin's use was maintained long into the 18thC. It use continued in Botany and other sciences in the coining of neologisms , and is still in use to this day. The 19thC saw the domination of English mainly because nearly all the decent innovations, discoveries and inventions all came from Britain. The French and the Germans had to take a back seat. The Germans seemed to have concentrated on philosophy whilst the French spent the whole century licking their wounds after the Napoleonic defeats. > The 19thC saw the domination of English mainly because nearly all the > decent innovations, discoveries and inventions all came from Britain. > The French and the Germans had to take a back seat. The Germans seemed > to have concentrated on philosophy whilst the French spent the whole > century licking their wounds after the Napoleonic defeats. So, Georg Ohm, Heinrich Hertz, Hermann von Helmholtz, Rudolf Clausius, and Heinrich Lenz took a "back seat"? (All big name 19th century German physicist) As did Augustin Fresnel, Pierre Dulong, Alexis Petit, Pierre Curie, and Andre Ampere? (Big name 19th century French Physicist) How... droll. English Chauvinism is not dead. Yes, there is a reason why back in the 1960s you had to be able to read a foreign language, usually German or French, to get a degree in physics at an accredited college in the English speaking United States. And after WW II, the only reason why we had a scientific jump on the Russians is because our captured German scientist were better than the Russian captured German scientists. :-D >> The 19thC saw the domination of English mainly because nearly all the >> decent innovations, discoveries and inventions all came from Britain. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and Heinrich Lenz took a "back seat"? (All big name 19th century German > physicist) Don't forget Albert Einstein, > As did Augustin Fresnel, Pierre Dulong, Alexis Petit, Pierre Curie, and > Andre Ampere? (Big name 19th century French Physicist) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Russians is because our captured German scientist were better than the > Russian captured German scientists. :-D For a time, German and French were the language of science. The only reason why it is English now is that most research is made in the USA. As soon as another country spends more money in research, its language will become the universal language. > >> The 19thC saw the domination of English mainly because nearly all the > >> decent innovations, discoveries and inventions all came from Britain. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > another country spends more money in research, its language will become the > universal language. Sure, Newton (and even Gauss still) wrote in Latin because of the huge sums spent on research in the Rome of his time, Jan > > The 19thC saw the domination of English mainly because nearly all the > > decent innovations, discoveries and inventions all came from Britain. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and Heinrich Lenz took a "back seat"? (All big name 19th century German > physicist) Yep -minor players. > As did Augustin Fresnel, Pierre Dulong, Alexis Petit, Pierre Curie, and > Andre Ampere? (Big name 19th century French Physicist) And them too. > How... droll. English Chauvinism is not dead. > > Yes, there is a reason why back in the 1960s you had to be able to read a > foreign language, usually German or French, to get a degree in physics at > an accredited college in the English speaking United States. Yes but it did not matter which one. In Germany and France English was essential. > And after WW II, the only reason why we had a scientific jump on the > Russians is because our captured German scientist were better than the > Russian captured German scientists. :-D Can I remind you I was talking about the 19thCentury not the 20thC? >> > The 19thC saw the domination of English mainly because nearly all the >> > decent innovations, discoveries and inventions all came from Britain. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Can I remind you I was talking about the 19thCentury not the 20thC? You had me going. I thought you were serious. I see it is just silly nationalistic posturing. > >> > The 19thC saw the domination of English mainly because nearly all the > >> > decent innovations, discoveries and inventions all came from Britain. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > You had me going. I thought you were serious. I see it is just silly > nationalistic posturing. I was 'avin' a laff! > > The use of Latin in the sciences and other learned fields basically > > ceased in the 18th and 19th centuries. I have long wondered why people [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > in use to this day. > The 19thC saw the domination of English In what field? Certainly not in math, science, philosophy, music, art, cuisine, etc. French was the overall lingua franca among educated people in the 19th century. English dominated relatively minor fields like tea-drinking and crumpet-making. > mainly because nearly all the > decent innovations, discoveries and inventions all came from Britain. > The French and the Germans had to take a back seat. The Germans seemed > to have concentrated on philosophy whilst the French spent the whole > century licking their wounds after the Napoleonic defeats. >>> The use of Latin in the sciences and other learned fields basically >>> ceased in the 18th and 19th centuries. I have long wondered why people [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > century. English dominated relatively minor fields like tea-drinking > and crumpet-making. And it stultified. France elides all words which aren't French to this day. Thus word creation and new meanings are expunged from the language. /BAH > >>> The use of Latin in the sciences and other learned fields basically > >>> ceased in the 18th and 19th centuries. I have long wondered why people [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > day. Thus word creation and new meanings are expunged from the > language. What is the relevance between what I said and what you wrote? >>>>> The use of Latin in the sciences and other learned fields basically >>>>> ceased in the 18th and 19th centuries. I have long wondered why people [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > What is the relevance between what I said and what you wrote? I thought I was having a conversation. The French make it almost impossible to do useful things in an efficient manner. You are not allowed to create new words until they are approved by some commission years later (can't recall the name). /BAH /BAH > >>>>> The use of Latin in the sciences and other learned fields basically > >>>>> ceased in the 18th and 19th centuries. I have long wondered why people [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > approved by some commission years later (can't recall the > name). Why do you care? I have come into this thread late with a poor browser. Excuse me if I ask a stupid question. When Latin fell from favor for international communication, scholarly or other, in what field (if any in particular) did it fail first? Was Latin particularly useful in the physical sciences or the philosophical discourse when it began its decline? TIA > I have come into this thread late with a poor browser. Excuse me if I > ask a stupid question. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > particularly useful in the physical sciences or the philosophical > discourse when it began its decline? Well, Goethe, Hegel, and Kant didn't write in Latin, and they were certainly influential in philosophy (and probably not the first to abandon Latin). > > I have come into this thread late with a poor browser. Excuse me if I > > ask a stupid question. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > certainly influential in philosophy (and probably not the first to > abandon Latin). In order to abandon it they would have had to use it in the first place. Hume predates the lot of them and I do not think he wrote in anything but English. > I have come into this thread late with a poor browser. Excuse me if I > ask a stupid question. It's not stupid. It's actually pertinent to the subject of this thread - though I still haven't gotten any answer for how Enlightenment ideas might be related to the decline of Latin. > When Latin fell from favor for international communication, scholarly or > other, in what field (if any in particular) did it fail first? Was Latin > particularly useful in the physical sciences or the philosophical > discourse when it began its decline? It all non-scholarly fields I think Latin was dead by 1700. In philosophy, it wasn't much more alive: I can think of the major philosophical works of the 18c. written in English, French, or German: even Leibniz wrote his philosophy originally in French! In history, probably likewise: Gibbon considered writing his magnum opus in French, but certainly not in Latin. It is in more technical fields, mainly, that it remained an alternative for some time. Its obsolescence does not seem to be because Latin was not understood, though, which is why I asked the question. Andrew Usher I have searched for things about Gauss's use of Latin that might bear on the question, these can be found with Google: The first is this, from Bell's 'Men of Mathematics': ' ... the supple Latin in which many of his greatest works were written. It is an ever-to-be-regretted calamity that even the example of Gauss was powerless against the tides of bigoted nationalism which swept over Europe after the French Revolution and the downfall of Napoleon. Instead of the easy Latin which sufficed for Euler and Gauss, and which any student can master in a few weeks [! I'll be charitable and assume Bell means students that have already been exposed to classical Latin], scientific workers must now acquire a reading knowledge of two or three languages in addition to their own. Gauss resisted as long as he could, but even he had to submit when his astronomical friends in Germany pressed him to write some of his astronomical works in German.'. I think Bell is distorting things at least somewhat when he says that Gauss really wanted to write in Latin: after 1801 almost all his personal notes were in German, and many of his Latin works were first drafted in German. The second is a letter (in English) written by Gauss's grandson that mentions the publication of the Werke. He says that they will be difficult reading, but adds to clarify that it is not because of the Latin but the mathematics; so I suppose one could still assume in 1866 that Latin was sufficiently understood. Andrew Usher "What are you laughing at Jackass?*!" - Quid rides equus asinus?*! "There goes my bleeper!" - Tintinnuntius meus sonat! "Seen one, seen'em all." - Uno viso, omnia visa sunt. "Seize the tape!" - Carpe Ductum! "What? Me worry?" - Quid? Me anxius sum? "I came. I saw. I broke wind." - Veni. Vedi. Flatui. "What goes around, comes around." - Id quot circumiret, circumveniat. "I've got to see a man about a dog." - Cum homine de cane debeo congredi. "Accountants don't know how to dress fashionably." - De gustibus non est disputandum. "Seize the check!" - Carpe per diem! "When all else fails, play dead." - Quando omni flunkus moritati. * * * Pithy persona non grata remarks: "Just do it!" Modo fac! "Not in my backyard!" Ne ponatur in mea vicinitate! "Bah! Humbug!" Phy! Fabulae! "Go ahead. Make my day!" - Age. Fac ut gaudeam! "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere! "I can't hear you, I have a banana in my ear." - Te audire no possum. Musa sapientum fixa est in aure. "May barbarians invade your personal space!" - Utinam barbari spatium proprium tuum invadant. "Shut up and go away!" - Tace atque abi. Oh and by the way, "Have a nice day!" - Die dulce fruimini! Quod ad tempus reservas ista lumina pulchella praemonitoria - ad Saturnalia? - What are you saving those pretty little turn signals for - Christmas? Beati mites, quoniam istis in ordine stantibus anteponere nosmet ipsos possumus. - Blessed are the meek, because we can cut in front of them in lineups. Licet mihi venerari pro deo quemlibet, etiam SpongoRoberto QuadratoBracatum et Santa! - I get to worship whomever I want, including SpongeBob SquarePants and Santa! "Honey, I'm home." - Mellita, domi adsum. "Really Rad, dude!" - Radicitus, comes! "What's happening?" - Quid fit? "What weird little munchkins! - Quales illic homunculi! "No way!" - Nullo modo! "Read my lips." - Labra lege. "Fat chance!" - Fors fortis! I don't want a toaster. - Fornulum pani lolo. "Pretty please with a cherry on top! " - Te precor dulcissime supplex! "I think we're on the same wavelength." - Credo nos in fluctu eodem esse. "If Caeser were alive, you'd be chained to an oar." - Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris. "In the good old days, children like you were left to perish on windswept crags!" - Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem. Bad kitty! Why don't you use the cat box? I put new litter in it. - Feles mala! Cur cista non uteris? Stramentum novum in ea pousi. http://www.squidoo.com/latin_for_laughs > "What are you laughing at Jackass?*!" > - Quid rides equus asinus?*! [quoted text clipped - 113 lines] > > http://www.squidoo.com/latin_for_laughs Pretty funny! "Nimiast miseria ricardo (giovanni tomassino) nimis pulchrum esse hominem ..." http://static.squidoo.com/resize/squidoo_images/-1/draft_lens1560563module990946 7photo_1213030626Hercules.jpg- How unbearably tiresome it is to have your dick (john thomas) fall off... > I think Bell is distorting things at least somewhat when he says that > Gauss really wanted to write in Latin: after 1801 almost all his > personal notes were in German, and many of his Latin works were first > drafted in German. More: It seems Gauss wrote in Latin until 1832 only because the Goettingen journal required it until 1837, when they switched to German. His only Latin works not published in it were the 'Disquisitiones', the 'Theoria Motus' (according to reports, it was written in German), and an 1808 pamphlet. Of course, Gauss had enough influence that he could probably have caused the journal to maintain Latin; I don't know if he did. Nor do I know yet what was the general pattern of language policy in Central European science around that time. Euler, on the other hand, did keep his personal notes in Latin and clearly preferred Latin; almost all his research articles that aren't Latin were published in the Berlin academy's journal, which required French from 1745 on (until 1781 when some German was allowed, 1804 when the French part was abandoned. They seem to have never used Latin again.) and even so, his publication there almost ceased when he returned to St. Petersburg in 1766. One might guess that that French requirement was at the instigation of Frederick II who was a complete francophile and also rather ignorant of science; it also explains why they never went back to Latin, because the tradition of Latin use had been broken. I am more convinced than before that the decline of Latin was directly due to the prestige of French, which successfully challenged Latin as _the_ common language of Europe. Andrew Usher > > I think Bell is distorting things at least somewhat when he says that > > Gauss really wanted to write in Latin: after 1801 almost all his [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > More: It seems Gauss wrote in Latin until 1832 only because the > Goettingen journal required it until 1837, when they switched to What journal is that? Grotefend's contribution to the Goettingische Gelehrte Anzeigen in 1802, announcing his approach to deciphering the Old Persian inscriptions from Perseoplis, is in German. > German. His only Latin works not published in it were the > 'Disquisitiones', the 'Theoria Motus' (according to reports, it was [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Andrew Usher > > More: It seems Gauss wrote in Latin until 1832 only because the > > Goettingen journal required it until 1837, when they switched to > > What journal is that? Grotefend's contribution to the Goettingische > Gelehrte Anzeigen in 1802, announcing his approach to deciphering the > Old Persian inscriptions from Perseoplis, is in German. 'Commentationes societatis regiae scientiarum Gottingensis'. Andrew Usher On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 20:44:42 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in <news:7c72ad12-014f-47d6-8a78-673b296777a1@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.philosophy: [...] >> More: It seems Gauss wrote in Latin until 1832 only because the >> Goettingen journal required it until 1837, when they switched to > What journal is that? Probably Commentationes Societatis Regiae Scientiarum Goettingensis, which in 1838 became Abhandlungen der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. I didn't investigate the editorial policy itself, but I know that Gauss did publish in this journal. [...] Brian > Probably Commentationes Societatis Regiae Scientiarum > Goettingensis, which in 1838 became Abhandlungen der > Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. I > didn't investigate the editorial policy itself, but I know > that Gauss did publish in this journal. Exactly. How did you find that answer so quickly? I'd be interested to know if there;s a better way to answer such questions. Andrew Usher > > Probably Commentationes Societatis Regiae Scientiarum > > Goettingensis, which in 1838 became Abhandlungen der [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Exactly. How did you find that answer so quickly? I'd be interested to > know if there;s a better way to answer such questions. What do you mean? His answer was posted 9 minutes after yours (which was posted 16 minutes after my query). Humanities continue(d) to be published in the GGA. The AKGWG doesn't come up (ever?) in my area, so maybe it's strictly physical/natural sciences? (The Abh. of other Ges. d. Wiss. across Germanophone Europe do publish philology, so it's not the term "Wissenschaft" that does it.) On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 04:30:29 -0800 (PST), Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com> wrote in <news:75034b7f-5dfa-478d-b1d9-53343f5d8e52@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.philosophy: >> Probably Commentationes Societatis Regiae Scientiarum >> Goettingensis, which in 1838 became Abhandlungen der >> Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. I >> didn't investigate the editorial policy itself, but I know >> that Gauss did publish in this journal. > Exactly. How did you find that answer so quickly? I'd be > interested to know if there;s a better way to answer such > questions. Looked up the Wikipedia article on Gauss, saw that he'd published with the Göttingen Royal Society of Science in both Latin and German, Googled for 'Königliches Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften in Göttingen', and found <http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Societies/Gottingen_Academy.html> as the second return. Brian > On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 04:30:29 -0800 (PST), Andrew Usher > <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > <http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Societies/Gottingen_Academy.html> > as the second return. Another method for those who don't know enough German or Latin to translate the journal name reliably: from the Wikipedia article, click the "Deutsch" link under "languages", and click "Schrifte" in the table of contents. The Latin and German names of the journal appear, so now you know what to search for. -- Jerry Friedman uses Google Groups. > > Exactly. How did you find that answer so quickly? I'd be > > interested to know if there;s a better way to answer such [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > <http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Societies/Gottingen_Academy.html> > as the second return. OK. I just wanted to know if there was some special index you used. You just thought of something I didn't in that brief time. Actually, that site has a small error: The Latin name actually was 'Gottingensis', not 'Goettingensis', from the Latin name of the city, 'Gottinga'. And note: '... ideas Haller advanced as to the nature and functions of an academy, including the use of a universal language in its publications.' Of course, using Latin in 1751 in Germany was not very shocking. Andrew Usher Andrew Usher wrote (11-01-2010 04:27): > I am more convinced than before that the decline of Latin was directly > due to the prestige of French (...) Damned wretched patois. António wrote on Mon, 11 Jan 2010 12:51:47 +0000: > Andrew Usher wrote (11-01-2010 04:27): >> I am more convinced than before that the decline of Latin was >> directly due to the prestige of French (...) > Damned wretched patois. Joseph Black (1728-1791) gave the first university chemistry lectures in the vernacular (Scots, not Latin or French) at Glasgow and later Edinburgh. Interestingly enough, he was born in Bordeaux.  SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not James Silverton wrote (11-01-2010 13:29): > António wrote on Mon, 11 Jan 2010 12:51:47 +0000: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the vernacular (Scots, not Latin or French) at Glasgow and later > Edinburgh. But one swallow dows not a spring make. More appropriately, in the reverse take popular around here, for a swallow's death does not spring end. > Interestingly enough, he was born in Bordeaux. At that time, that city was still occitan-speaking, though the elites mostly knew french. António wrote on Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:06:51 +0000: > James Silverton wrote (11-01-2010 13:29): >> António wrote on Mon, 11 Jan 2010 12:51:47 +0000: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> in the vernacular (Scots, not Latin or French) at >> Glasgow and later Edinburgh. > But one swallow dows not a spring make. More appropriately, in > the reverse take popular around here, for a swallow's death > does not spring end. The use of the vernacular spread rapidly among the universities of Britain that had emerged from the Middle Ages. The language was quite quickly English and not Scots. >> Interestingly enough, he was born in Bordeaux. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > António wrote on Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:06:51 +0000: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Britain that had emerged from the Middle Ages. The language was quite > quickly English and not Scots. Joseph Black seems to have written in standard English: http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/black.html >>> Interestingly enough, he was born in Bordeaux. And he was born well after Christian Thomasius gave the first lectures in the vernacular at Leipzig, in 1687. SignatureJames > James Silverton wrote (11-01-2010 13:29): >> António wrote on Mon, 11 Jan 2010 12:51:47 +0000: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > reverse take popular around here, for a swallow's death does not > spring end. Ah. Is that a direct translation? In the usual English version "a single swallow doth not a summer make". (well, many versions varying in words chosen, but "summer" is kind of standard) http://tinyurl.com/yhctppp ( http://www.google.com/search?q=a+single+swallow+doth+not+the+summer+make&rls=com .microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7ACAW_enUS343 US342 ) Or, another blurb from another search: From a quote by Aristotle, so many versions probably exist in all languages. "From a quote by Aristotle (384 BCE - 322 BCE) "One swallow does not a summer make, nor one fine day; similarly one day or brief time of happiness does not ..." Of course there are numerous puns in English about what a single swallow can cause. It all depends on what one is required to swallow. Pat Durkin wrote (11-01-2010 17:30): >> James Silverton wrote (11-01-2010 13:29): >>> António wrote on Mon, 11 Jan 2010 12:51:47 +0000: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > single swallow doth not a summer make". (well, many versions varying > in words chosen, but "summer" is kind of standard) Yeah, I wondered about that too. But google says 'spring' is also in use. Down here it's hard to say, since what most people are familiar with are the lyrics from a 60's song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WIG22nH8_0 Se deixaste de ser minha (minha dor) não deixei de ser quem era (e tudo é novo) por morrer uma andorinha (sem amor) não acaba a primavera (diz o povo) If you-ceased of being mine (my pain) not I-ceased of being who I-was (and all is new) by dying a swallow (without love) not ends the spring (says the people) Even if you're no longer mine (my pain) I haven't stopped being who I was (and everything is new) Just because one swallow dies (loveless) spring doesn't end (the people say) > From a quote by Aristotle, so many versions probably exist in all > languages. > "From a quote by Aristotle (384 BCE - 322 BCE) "One swallow does not a > summer make, nor one fine day; similarly one day or brief time of > happiness does not ..." The interesting part in 'our' version is that it can also mean (and often does) that a single mishap does not compromise a whole situation. > Of course there are numerous puns in English about what a single > swallow can cause. It all depends on what one is required to swallow. This is a family newsgroup. > Pat Durkin wrote (11-01-2010 17:30): >>> James Silverton wrote (11-01-2010 13:29): [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > por morrer uma andorinha (sem amor) > não acaba a primavera (diz o povo) Pretty readable. I am a fan of "o fado ", so have picked up a few words. Still, I "andorinha" does kind of remind of of "la golondrina", so I googled that. Lovely sentimental stuff. http://tinyurl.com/ykjowfn ( http://www.google.com/search?q=la+golondrina+song&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Sea rchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7ACAW_enUS343US342 ) Still, I will have to check out Placido Domingo's version. > If you-ceased of being mine (my pain) > not I-ceased of being who I-was (and all is new) [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > often does) that a single mishap does not compromise a whole > situation. So does ours. (or not...) >> Of course there are numerous puns in English about what a single >> swallow can cause. It all depends on what one is required to >> swallow. > > This is a family newsgroup. OK. But some diets include political BS and propaganda... > I have come into this thread late with a poor browser. Excuse me if I > ask a stupid question. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > particularly useful in the physical sciences or the philosophical > discourse when it began its decline? It's decline first appeared in religion. In the Reformation there were many forces that decided it would be a good idea to give non-latin speakers the opportunity to read the bible for themselves in their own languages. This nicely co-incided with the invention of printing though earlier moves had been made to anglicise the bible. The real impact would have to wait for Gutenburg. > TIA >>>>>>> The use of Latin in the sciences and other learned fields basically >>>>>>> ceased in the 18th and 19th centuries. I have long wondered why people [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > Why do you care? JMF had a presentation which was supposed to teach 50-100 Frenchmen how to modify and work with a ship of new software. He was given an hour to present 5 hours worth of technical information. Every sentence he uttered had to be translated into French before he could go on to the next sentence. Having an interruption of a minute between sentences which have intense technical information disturbs the flow of knowledge. It also reduced the allotted time of his talk to 30 minutes. he did not get to talk about many details that the audience needed to learn about. He put up with this nonsense because he assumed there were people in the audience who didn't understand English. After the talk, he found out everybody knew English. So the French government edict, which required the seminar to be translated in French, prevented our knowledge getting into the heads of the very people who were trying to produce things in France. Work prevention is the goal. /BAH > >>>>>>> The use of Latin in the sciences and other learned fields basically > >>>>>>> ceased in the 18th and 19th centuries. I have long wondered why people [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > the audience who didn't understand English. After > the talk, he found out everybody knew English. Yes, most French people know English, Italian, Spanish, and/or German, etc. So do Canadians. They are educated people, unlike Americans and Englishmen, who are too busy reading comic books and cartoons to learn foreign languages. Your point well taken. On Dec 27, 6:57 pm, "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr." <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>> The use of Latin in the sciences and other learned fields basically > > >>>>>>> ceased in the 18th and 19th centuries. I have long wondered why people [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > Englishmen, who are too busy reading comic books and cartoons to learn > foreign languages. Since anymore, post of the crank science people spend a good part making of languages for Betelguesians, the people with actual sense work on self-assembling robots, the people actual brains, work on post stooge idiot and on-line publishing. > Your point well taken.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. (in alt.usage.english): > Yes, most French people know English Sort of. Joachim > The French make it almost > impossible to do useful things in an efficient manner. You are not > allowed to create new words until they are approved by some commission > years later (can't recall the name). Academie francaise. Sorry, I can't do the French characters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionnaire_de_l%27Acad%C3%A9mie_fran%C3% A7aise This does have advantages. For one thing, the Engs and the Americans butcher the English language. Real English has a limited set of phonemes, but the Engs and the Americans have this nasty habit of using every phoneme from every language. And they're starting to insist that foreign pronunciations be used. They're completely ignorant that there often are more than one dialect in a language; for example, Spanish. Another benefit is that the Engs (Engs live in Eng-land, right?) and Americans use words incorrectly, and the incorrect usage becomes "correct" because they're so fond of "descriptive" dictionaries rather than proscriptive dictionaries. It's very democratic, the idiots get to decide what words mean. It's one big Archie Bunker joke. For example, to "protest" means to testify FOR something. In idiot speak, to "protest the war" means to speak against the war when the real meaning is to speak FOR the war. Lastly, it is hoped that having a panel such as the French Academy would prevent fad gibberish words like "bling-bling" from reaching the dictionary. Don't even get me started on how "Ebonics" is being passed off as English. The only real downside to the French Academy is that idiots who don't use the language properly are called idiots. Is that so wrong? > > The French make it almost > > impossible to do useful things in an efficient manner. You are not [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > pronunciations be used. They're completely ignorant that there often are > more than one dialect in a language; for example, Spanish. Please don't use words you don't understand (such as "phoneme"). > Another benefit is that the Engs (Engs live in Eng-land, right?) and > Americans use words incorrectly, and the incorrect usage becomes [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > war" means to speak against the war when the real meaning is to speak FOR > the war. Please don't expatiate on things you know nothing of. And pick up an elementary introduction to linguistics. (Just about any book by David Crystal or Jean Aitchison would be helpful.) > Lastly, it is hoped that having a panel such as the French Academy would > prevent fad gibberish words like "bling-bling" from reaching the > dictionary. Don't even get me started on how "Ebonics" is being passed > off as English. No danger of that, since no such thing is happening. (Nor was it happening when the stupid name "Ebonics" was invented.) > The only real downside to the French Academy is that idiots who don't use > the language properly are called idiots. Is that so wrong? Have you ever heard of King Canute? > > This does have advantages. For one thing, the Engs and the Americans > > butcher the English language. Real English has a limited set of phonemes, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Please don't use words you don't understand (such as "phoneme"). English hasn't added a (consonantal) phoneme since the 12th century or so, when the distinction between s and z (and the other similar pairs) was taken over with borrowings of French words. > > > This does have advantages. For one thing, the Engs and the Americans > > > butcher the English language. Real English has a limited set of phonemes, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > so, when the distinction between s and z (and the other similar pairs) > was taken over with borrowings of French words. False. English added [Z] as in 'measure' in the 17c. , and I don't believe the distinction between voiced and unvoiced 'th' became phonemic until the 14c. in the standard dialect. It is also true - as Marvin said - that many English speakers do pronounce foreign words with foreign phonemes ex. the umlautted vowels in 'Goethe' and 'Fuehrer' (though Brits already have the first), and consider not using them improper. Andrew Usher Sun, 27 Dec 2009 05:11:53 -0800 (PST): Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com>: in sci.lang: >It is also true - as >Marvin said - that many English speakers do pronounce foreign words >with foreign phonemes ex. the umlautted vowels in 'Goethe' and >'Fuehrer' (though Brits already have the first), No they don't. >and consider not >using them improper. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 05:11:53 -0800 (PST), Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com> wrote in <news:55772067-ca57-4c5f-a8ac-304c203adaaf@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.philosophy: [...] >> English hasn't added a (consonantal) phoneme since the >> 12th century or so, when the distinction between s and z >> (and the other similar pairs) was taken over with >> borrowings of French words. > False. English added [Z] as in 'measure' in the 17c. , and > I don't believe the distinction between voiced and > unvoiced 'th' became phonemic until the 14c. in the > standard dialect. True, though some linguists would argue that the [þ]~[ð] distinction still isn't phonemic, since the distribution is predictable (albeit the conditioning isn't phonological). > It is also true - as Marvin said - that many English > speakers do pronounce foreign words with foreign phonemes > ex. the umlautted vowels in 'Goethe' and 'Fuehrer' > (though Brits already have the first), Now there I disagree: they don't have [ø:]. > and consider not using them improper. Brian Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:49:40 -0500: "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu>: in sci.lang: >> I don't believe the distinction between voiced and >> unvoiced 'th' became phonemic until the 14c. in the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >distinction still isn't phonemic, since the distribution is >predictable (albeit the conditioning isn't phonological). http://rudhar.com/lingtics/dhth_eng.htm SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:49:40 -0500: "Brian M. Scott" > <b.sc...@csuohio.edu>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > -- > Ruud Harmsen,http://rudhar.com Thanks! I once carried on a long argument with one of those "some linguists" on this topic. Looking at this mishmash of phonological, grammatical and etymological conditions, I am more than ever at a loss to understand how any linguist can maintain with a straight face that dh/th are in "complementary distribution". Ross Clark On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 22:53:55 -0800 (PST), in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.philosophy: >> Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:49:40 -0500: "Brian M. Scott" >> <b.sc...@csuohio.edu>: in sci.lang: >>>> I don't believe the distinction between voiced and >>>> unvoiced 'th' became phonemic until the 14c. in the >>>> standard dialect. >>>True, though some linguists would argue that the [ ]~[ ] >>>distinction still isn't phonemic, since the distribution is >>>predictable (albeit the conditioning isn't phonological). >> http://rudhar.com/lingtics/dhth_eng.htm > Thanks! I once carried on a long argument with one of > those "some linguists" on this topic. Looking at this > mishmash of phonological, grammatical and etymological > conditions, I am more than ever at a loss to understand > how any linguist can maintain with a straight face that > dh/th are in "complementary distribution". The one that I had in mind was Robert Whiting, on the old IE list. He argued at considerable length but failed altogether to convince Larry Trask and Leo Connolly (not to mention me). Brian On Dec 27, 10:53 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote: > > Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:49:40 -0500: "Brian M. Scott" > > <b.sc...@csuohio.edu>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Ross Clark It offends them that there are no minial pairs. On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:05:09 -0800 (PST), DKleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> wrote in <news:e1f26d37-f0bf-4a6d-9aa3-9f3ee47a6f08@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.philosophy: > On Dec 27, 10:53 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> > wrote: [...] >> ... I am more than ever at a loss to understand how any >> linguist can maintain with a straight face that dh/th >> are in "complementary distribution". > It offends them that there are no minial pairs. Tthere are, and they know it: <thigh> ~ <thy>, and for many people <either> ~ <ether>. They dispose of these on other grounds. Brian > On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:05:09 -0800 (PST), DKleinecke > <dkleinecke@gmail.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > people <either> ~ <ether>. They dispose of these on other > grounds. Sooth-soothe, teeth-teethe. Thayer-there (in Texas)? >> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:05:09 -0800 (PST), DKleinecke >> <dkleinecke@gmail.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Sooth-soothe, teeth-teethe. Thayer-there (in Texas)? Is it not odd, however, that although both sounds are common in the language, not even a single one of these minimal pairs is beyond argument: "thy" and "sooth" are rare to the point of non-existence in modern English (other than in religious use, in the case of "thy"); "either" and "ether" are not a minimal pair for many (most?) native speakers; although "teething" is certainly a common word in everyday use I'm not sure that "teethe" is. You can say, for example, "children start to teethe at about one-year old" (or whatever age it is: my youngest child is 26, so It was a while ago), but you'd be much more likely to hear "children start teething at about one-year old". I don't for a moment doubt that the distinction is phonemic, but it would be nice to have just one minimal pair of everyday words that wasn't open to any sort of objection. Signatureathel Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:06:14 +0100: Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr>: in sci.lang: >>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:05:09 -0800 (PST), DKleinecke >>> <dkleinecke@gmail.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >> >> Sooth-soothe, teeth-teethe. Thayer-there (in Texas)? loath loathe wreath wreathe sheath sheathe mouth (noun) mouth (verb) thou (short for 1000) thou (pronoun) teeth teethe SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > [ ... ] > loath loathe OK > wreath wreathe "wreathed" is OK, but how often does the uninflected form occur: almost never. > sheath sheathe Likewise. I don't think I've ever heard "wreathed" in uninflected form. > mouth (noun) mouth (verb) OK > thou (short for 1000) thou (pronoun) The first is engineers' slang; the latter is archaic (other than in church) > teeth teethe As I mentioned earlier (in the bit you chopped), I think "teething" is very rare in uninflected form. So we're left with "loth" (as I spell it, but I realize not everyone does) and "loathe", together with "mouth" and "mouth". If anyone doubted whether the difference between f and v was phonemic one could think of endless examples to show that it was, including some very common words like "life" and "live" (adjective). So there does seem to be something special about the two th sounds. Is there any mechanism that could explain why minimal pairs are so rare? Signatureathel On Dec 29, 2:45 pm, Athel Cornish-Bowden <acorn...@ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote: > > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > seem to be something special about the two th sounds. Is there any > mechanism that could explain why minimal pairs are so rare? The sounds themselves are rare. > On Dec 29, 2:45 pm, Athel Cornish-Bowden <acorn...@ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr> > wrote: >> If anyone doubted whether the difference between f and v was phonemic >> one could think of endless examples to show that it was, including some [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The sounds themselves are rare. You just managed to fit two of them into a five-word sentence. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. > > On Dec 29, 2:45 pm, Athel Cornish-Bowden <acorn...@ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > You just managed to fit two of them into a five-word sentence. Do you really not know the difference between type and token? between paradigmatic and syntagmatic? Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:46:43 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >> > On Dec 29, 2:45 pm, Athel Cornish-Bowden <acorn...@ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr> >> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Do you really not know the difference between type and token? between >paradigmatic and syntagmatic? (The question was not directed to me, but ...) No, I didn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigmatic_analysis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntagmatic http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tekensysteem SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com >> On Dec 29, 2:45 pm, Athel Cornish-Bowden <acorn...@ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > You just managed to fit two of them into a five-word sentence. The fact that they occur in some of the most commonly used words has no bearing on their statistical distribution *among* words. > On Dec 29, 2:45 pm, Athel Cornish-Bowden <acorn...@ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > The sounds themselves are rare. Some English sounds are so rare they are non-existent. There is no reason why we shouldn't have words beginning "stw-" but we don't (so far as I know - I haven't tested all the places names in England). Interesting philosophical question whether a possible sound with no examples exists in a language or doesn't. For example "atlatl" but "tl" is usually considered non-existent. So far as can tell Englisg speakers have no trouble saying "tl" - unlike, for example, initial 'ng' On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:45:53 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote in <news:7pv4jhFk1U1@mid.individual.net> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.philosophy: [...] >> sheath sheathe > Likewise. I don't think I've ever heard "wreathed" in > uninflected form. I've *used* <sheathe> (which I suspect is what you meant). So have a lot of re-enactors. >> mouth (noun) mouth (verb) > OK >> thou (short for 1000) thou (pronoun) > The first is engineers' slang; Also used of money. > the latter is archaic (other than in church) [...] Brian > On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:45:53 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden ><acornish@ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I've *used* <sheathe> (which I suspect is what you meant). > So have a lot of re-enactors. Interesting. I would probably read both "he sheathed his sword" and "flowers wreathed his head" aloud with /T/ rather than /D/, i.e., with the same consonant as in the nouns "sheath" and "wreath" ... wrong? (I admit that (like some of my friends) I have acquired words from reading and guessed the wrong pronunciation at first.) SignatureI worry that 10 or 15 years from now, [my daughter] will come to me and say 'Daddy, where were you when they took freedom of the press away from the Internet?' [Mike Godwin, EFF http://www.eff.org/ ] > On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:45:53 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden > <acornish@ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > [...] I don't think I've heard engineers use thou for their slang other than money (which other people use). Our slang for thou was K. /BAH jmfbahciv (in sci.lang): >> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:45:53 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden >> <acornish@ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > other than money (which other people use). Our slang for > thou was K. Abbreviating "thousand" as "thou" doesn't look very engeneerish to me. (Except in Japanese, where this would even be a typical formation). Joachim >jmfbahciv (in sci.lang): > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >Abbreviating "thousand" as "thou" doesn't look very engeneerish to me. >(Except in Japanese, where this would even be a typical formation). "Thou" is or was engineer-speak for "thousandths of an inch". SignatureIan D >> jmfbahciv (in sci.lang): >>> I don't think I've heard engineers use thou for their slang >>> other than money (which other people use). Our slang for [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > "Thou" is or was engineer-speak for "thousandths of an inch". I've heard that from machinists, back in the days when they used inches. I don't think I've ever heard it from an engineer. For whatever reason, there are noticeable differences between the vocabulary of engineers and the vocabulary of the people who make things. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >>> jmfbahciv (in sci.lang): > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >there are noticeable differences between the vocabulary of engineers and >the vocabulary of the people who make things. Well, if we're into personal testimony - I heard it from my father, who was an aircraft engineer. You might not hear it today, because they're more likely to use microns, I think. Try Wikipiedia : Thou (length) For whatever reason, there are noticeable differences between the vocabulary of those who are prepared to research things and those who prefer to spout bollocks off the top of their heads... SignatureIan D >>> Abbreviating "thousand" as "thou" doesn't look very engeneerish to me. >>> (Except in Japanese, where this would even be a typical formation). >> "Thou" is or was engineer-speak for "thousandths of an inch". >> > I've heard that from machinists, back in the days when they used inches. > I don't think I've ever heard it from an engineer. For whatever reason, > there are noticeable differences between the vocabulary of engineers and > the vocabulary of the people who make things. I think mechanics & machinists used to use "mils" or "mills" some time ago for thousandths of an inch, but this fell into disuse (I'm not sure how long ago) because of the potential for confusion with millimeters. SignatureOh, I do most of my quality thinking on the old sandbox. [Bucky Katt] >> [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Likewise. I don't think I've ever heard "wreathed" in uninflected form. I'm pretty sure that's not possible to hear. But there are surely contexts in which no one would raise an eyebrow at something like "If you don't sheathe that sword right now, you'll go to bed with no supper!" >> mouth (noun) mouth (verb) > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > As I mentioned earlier (in the bit you chopped), I think "teething" is > very rare in uninflected form. "Teething," yes. But "teethe" is OK--"Children begin to teethe before they are five years old as a rule." > If anyone doubted whether the difference between f and v was phonemic > one could think of endless examples to show that it was, including some > very common words like "life" and "live" (adjective). So there does > seem to be something special about the two th sounds. Is there any > mechanism that could explain why minimal pairs are so rare? I wonder how the overall frequencies of "th" (/T/?) and "dh" (/D/?) compare with /f/ and /v/, /s/ and /z/. Bart (removed all crossposts except aue) > > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > seem to be something special about the two th sounds. Is there any > mechanism that could explain why minimal pairs are so rare? /D/ and /T/ are the second and third rarest consonant phonemes in English respectively (about 0.1% and 0.3% by type frequency), and since words can be rather long in English, the probability of a minimal pair existing between /T/ and /D/ is very small. The fourth and fifth rarest consonants are /j/ and /h/ (both more than twice as common as /T/, about 0.7% and 0.75%), and at that point, finding minimal pairs starts to become a lot easier (year/hear, yell/hell, etc.). Even finding minimal pairs or triplets between /j,h/ and either of /T/ or /D/ is relatively easy (yay/hay/they, yen/hen/then, yo/tho, high/thigh, yank/Hank/thank, etc.). The rarest consonant is /Z/ (0.07%), and minimal pairs between /Z/ and /T/ or /D/ are difficult to find, if not impossible (I can't think of any off the top of my head, because the number of words with /Z/ is so small to begin with). There are plenty of near-minimal pairs for /T/ and /D/ (some depending on dialect): earthy/worthy, author/bother, thin/then (a true minimal pair for US Southerners), thin/this, thank/than, etc. Nathan Nathan Sanders wrote (29-12-2009 20:49): > There are plenty of near-minimal pairs for /T/ and /D/ (some depending > on dialect): earthy/worthy, author/bother, thin/then (a true minimal > pair for US Southerners), thin/this, thank/than, etc. Earthy/worthy being a very good one since the words belong to the same specific class (not only both are referents, both are adjectives). > Nathan Sanders wrote (29-12-2009 20:49): > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Earthy/worthy being a very good one since the words belong to the same > specific class (not only both are referents, both are adjectives). Right, it avoids the distributional "rules" based on lexical category. Note that <author> and <bother> can each be a noun and a verb, so that pair avoids the lexical category problem, unless it's based solely on *primary* lexical category. In that case, replace <bother> with <father> (only for those speakers who use the same vowels in these words, of course). Nathan Nathan Sanders wrote (29-12-2009 20:49): > /D/ and /T/ are the second and third rarest consonant phonemes in > English respectively (about 0.1% and 0.3% by type frequency), and > since words can be rather long in English, the probability of a > minimal pair existing between /T/ and /D/ is very small. If only one of the were rare, of course, that wouldn't be an argument. It's the fact of both being rare that makes it ponderous. On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 15:49:20 -0500, Nathan Sanders <nathansanders@aol.com> wrote in <news:nathansanders-B6B9FC.15492029122009@88-136-209-74.adslgp.cegetel.net> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.philosophy: [...] > The rarest consonant is /Z/ (0.07%), and minimal pairs > between /Z/ and /T/ or /D/ are difficult to find, if not > impossible (I can't think of any off the top of my head, > because the number of words with /Z/ is so small to > begin with). He can pleasure a plethora of women? <g> <Leather> and <leisure> work for some speakers. To go with <measure> the OED has <mether> (with [ð]), chiefly Irish English and chiefly historical: 'A wooden vessel used for measuring liquids; a square wooden drinking vessel, freq. used as a measure of liquor. Also (Sc.): a similar vessel used for holding or measuring grain (rare).' The best I can do for [þ] is a nomen agentis <oather> 'one who oaths' and <osier>. <Oather> is a legitimate though practically non-existent formation from the verb 'to impose an oath on'; I have seen it in some sort of gaming context. I take that back: I've seen <mether> 'one who uses crystal meth'. Brian Tue, 29 Dec 2009 15:49:20 -0500: Nathan Sanders <nathansanders@aol.com>: in sci.lang: >/D/ and /T/ are the second and third rarest consonant phonemes in >English respectively (about 0.1% and 0.3% by type frequency), Counting dictionary words, each as one word, or counting words in a corpus? That makes a huge difference, because of all those millions of 'the's and 'that's. >and >since words can be rather long in English, the probability of a >minimal pair existing between /T/ and /D/ is very small. Right. Counting by word list or dictionary, it turns out. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Tue, 29 Dec 2009 15:49:20 -0500: Nathan Sanders > <nathansanders@aol.com>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Counting dictionary words, each as one word, Yes. (That's what "type frequency" refers to.) > or counting words in a corpus? That would be token frequency. > That makes a huge difference, because of all those millions of > 'the's and 'that's. Indeed! Nathan SignatureNathan Sanders Linguistics Program Williams College http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/ Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:49:40 -0500: Nathan Sanders <nsanders@williams.edu>: in sci.lang: >> >/D/ and /T/ are the second and third rarest consonant phonemes in >> >English respectively (about 0.1% and 0.3% by type frequency), [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >That would be token frequency. I see, I didn't know those terms. Now I do, thanks. Also mentioned here: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_(taalkunde) SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com Ruud Harmsen wrote (30-12-2009 08:20): > Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:49:40 -0500: Nathan Sanders > <nsanders@williams.edu>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > here: > http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_(taalkunde) If the discussion is about /D/ and /T/ as contrasting units, then only 'type frequency' is relevant. > Ruud Harmsen wrote (30-12-2009 08:20): > > Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:49:40 -0500: Nathan Sanders [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > If the discussion is about /D/ and /T/ as contrasting units, then only 'type > frequency' is relevant. That's why it was the only one I mentioned originally. Token frequency only came up in follow-up clarification. Nathan SignatureNathan Sanders Linguistics Program Williams College http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/ Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote (29-12-2009 19:45): > If anyone doubted whether the difference between f and v was phonemic > one could think of endless examples to show that it was, including some > very common words like "life" and "live" (adjective). So there does seem > to be something special about the two th sounds. Is there any mechanism > that could explain why minimal pairs are so rare? Is this so different from the case with german ch? (It is different in a quantitative sense, inasmuch as some speakers undoubtedly do have one ch phoneme while others may have two; but it's similar inasmuch as it's a borderline case.) Tue, 29 Dec 2009 21:24:54 +0000: António Marques <antonioprm@sapo.pt>: in sci.lang: >Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote (29-12-2009 19:45): > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >phoneme while others may have two; but it's similar inasmuch as it's a >borderline case.) Remember, borderline cases a.k.a. marginal phonemes DO NOT exist, per Peter T Daniels. Phonemes are strictly "same or different", even in historical context. So one day, at 5:31:14.037 AM on the 14th of March of the year 1437, the former allophones [D] and [T] suddenly turned into separate phonemes /D/ and /T/ in the English language. Science doesn't allow any other scenario, so it cannot have happened but so. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com Tue, 29 Dec 2009 23:51:41 +0100: Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.eu>: in sci.lang: >Remember, borderline cases a.k.a. marginal phonemes DO NOT exist, per >Peter T Daniels. Phonemes are strictly "same or different", even in >historical context. So one day, at 5:31:14.037 AM on the 14th of March >of the year 1437, the former allophones [D] and [T] suddenly turned >into separate phonemes /D/ and /T/ in the English language. Science >doesn't allow any other scenario, so it cannot have happened but so. Correction: the exact moment can be a matter for debate, of course, but not that the change took place within a single millisecond. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Tue, 29 Dec 2009 21:24:54 +0000: António Marques <antonioprm@sapo.pt>: > in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > into separate phonemes /D/ and /T/ in the English language. Science > doesn't allow any other scenario, so it cannot have happened but so. That kind of change isn't instantaneous for a whole language, it travels in waves. It wasn't really complete until sometime in the 1480s. > > Tue, 29 Dec 2009 21:24:54 +0000: António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt>: > > in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > It wasn't really complete until sometime in the 1480s.- But the moment someone realized that "pressure" and "pleasure" don't rhyme, it was phonemic _for that person_. Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:29:34 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >But the moment someone realized that "pressure" and "pleasure" don't >rhyme, it was phonemic _for that person_. And what if that person doubted whether they really rhymed, for 15 years? That is the reality. It just doesn't happen overnight, not even for one speaker. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:11:22 +0100, Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.eu> wrote in <news:30noj5pfkt871odjs8on57av0rdg5o39kd@4ax.com> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:29:34 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" > <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >> But the moment someone realized that "pressure" and >> "pleasure" don't rhyme, it was phonemic _for that >> person_. > And what if that person doubted whether they really > rhymed, for 15 years? That is the reality. It just > doesn't happen overnight, not even for one speaker. In this case doubt is unlikely; if you want to pick nits, you should note a speaker might make a consistent distinction for years without ever noticing it. (It's not really a very good example, though: <pleasure> has had a very large variety of pronunciations, many of which have not rhymed with contemporary pronunciations of <pressure> for reasons that have nothing to do with the difference between [S] and [Z].) Brian > On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:11:22 +0100, Ruud Harmsen > <r...@rudhar.eu> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > you should note a speaker might make a consistent > distinction for years without ever noticing it. (It's not That would be an allophonic, not a phonemic, distinction. Like non- aspiration of consonants after /s/, or vowel lengthening before a voiced consonant. > really a very good example, though: <pleasure> has had a > very large variety of pronunciations, many of which have not > rhymed with contemporary pronunciations of <pressure> for > reasons that have nothing to do with the difference between > [S] and [Z].) Leave it to Brian to come up with an utterly irrelevant nit. If you're so smart, what's _your_ example for making this point? On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 04:27:29 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in <news:bed3caa7-b378-4724-afe4-cd84c32590bf@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:11:22 +0100, Ruud Harmsen >> <r...@rudhar.eu> wrote in >> <news:30noj5pfkt871odjs8on57av0rdg5o39kd@4ax.com> in >> sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >>> Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:29:34 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" >>> <gramma...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >>>> But the moment someone realized that "pressure" and >>>> "pleasure" don't rhyme, it was phonemic _for that >>>> person_. >>> And what if that person doubted whether they really >>> rhymed, for 15 years? That is the reality. It just >>> doesn't happen overnight, not even for one speaker. >> In this case doubt is unlikely; if you want to pick nits, >> you should note a speaker might make a consistent >> distinction for years without ever noticing it. (It's not > That would be an allophonic, not a phonemic, distinction. Like non- > aspiration of consonants after /s/, or vowel lengthening before a > voiced consonant. Not if it's lexically determined. >> really a very good example, though: <pleasure> has had a >> very large variety of pronunciations, many of which have not >> rhymed with contemporary pronunciations of <pressure> for >> reasons that have nothing to do with the difference between >> [S] and [Z].) > Leave it to Brian to come up with an utterly irrelevant nit. > If you're so smart, what's _your_ example for making this point? Specifically for /S/ and /Z/? I haven't one off the top of my head. But I'm fussy: I'd not offer one without trying to make sure that it actually worked. Brian > On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 04:27:29 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Not if it's lexically determined. If it's lexically determined, then it distinguishes words, making it conscious and phonemic. > >> really a very good example, though: <pleasure> has had a > >> very large variety of pronunciations, many of which have not [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > my head. But I'm fussy: I'd not offer one without trying to > make sure that it actually worked. There's been a promo on NPR today saying "You can't build a time machine to go back before the time machine built." So how would you "make sure"? On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:52:10 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in <news:bd189bd1-1e9f-45d6-9ffe-89d027664e0a@j5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 04:27:29 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in >> <news:bed3caa7-b378-4724-afe4-cd84c32590bf@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com> >> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >>>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:11:22 +0100, Ruud Harmsen >>>> <r...@rudhar.eu> wrote in >>>> <news:30noj5pfkt871odjs8on57av0rdg5o39kd@4ax.com> in >>>> sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >>>>> Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:29:34 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" >>>>> <gramma...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >>>>>> But the moment someone realized that "pressure" and >>>>>> "pleasure" don't rhyme, it was phonemic _for that >>>>>> person_. >>>>> And what if that person doubted whether they really >>>>> rhymed, for 15 years? That is the reality. It just >>>>> doesn't happen overnight, not even for one speaker. >>>> In this case doubt is unlikely; if you want to pick nits, >>>> you should note a speaker might make a consistent >>>> distinction for years without ever noticing it. (It's not >>> That would be an allophonic, not a phonemic, distinction. Like non- >>> aspiration of consonants after /s/, or vowel lengthening before a >>> voiced consonant. >> Not if it's lexically determined. > If it's lexically determined, then it distinguishes words, making it > conscious and phonemic. It certainly needn't be conscious. You must know how many people don't realize that English <th> represents two different 'sounds'. See also Labov's work on near-mergers; there's an example on p. 291 of Trask's _Historical Linguistics_. [...] >> Specifically for /S/ and /Z/? I haven't one off the top >> of my head. But I'm fussy: I'd not offer one without >> trying to make sure that it actually worked. > There's been a promo on NPR today saying "You can't build > a time machine to go back before the time machine built." > So how would you "make sure"? *Trying* to make sure. In other words, doing the best I can. Brian > On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:52:10 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > there's an example on p. 291 of Trask's _Historical > Linguistics_. Let's see you find someone who doesn't realize that "either" and "ether" are different words. > >> Specifically for /S/ and /Z/? I haven't one off the top > >> of my head. But I'm fussy: I'd not offer one without [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > *Trying* to make sure. In other words, doing the best I > can. On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 20:37:38 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in <news:511cd06a-897a-4431-8cbf-f8adabc6e75b@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:52:10 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in >> <news:bd189bd1-1e9f-45d6-9ffe-89d027664e0a@j5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> >> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english: [...] >>>> Not if it's lexically determined. >>> If it's lexically determined, then it distinguishes words, making it >>> conscious and phonemic. >> It certainly needn't be conscious. You must know how many >> people don't realize that English <th> represents two >> different 'sounds'. See also Labov's work on near-mergers; >> there's an example on p. 291 of Trask's _Historical >> Linguistics_. > Let's see you find someone who doesn't realize that > "either" and "ether" are different words. Surely you must realize that this is totally irrelevant. [...] > On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 20:37:38 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Surely you must realize that this is totally irrelevant. Then I have no idea what you meant by "lexically determined." On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 10:12:30 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in <news:562db069-0c36-429f-bbcf-f2811037a777@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 20:37:38 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in >> <news:511cd06a-897a-4431-8cbf-f8adabc6e75b@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> >> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >>>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:52:10 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >>>> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in >>>> <news:bd189bd1-1e9f-45d6-9ffe-89d027664e0a@j5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> >>>> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >> [...] >>>>>> Not if it's lexically determined. >>>>> If it's lexically determined, then it distinguishes >>>>> words, making it conscious and phonemic. >>>> It certainly needn't be conscious. You must know how many >>>> people don't realize that English <th> represents two >>>> different 'sounds'. See also Labov's work on near-mergers; >>>> there's an example on p. 291 of Trask's _Historical >>>> Linguistics_. >>> Let's see you find someone who doesn't realize that >>> "either" and "ether" are different words. >> Surely you must realize that this is totally irrelevant. > Then I have no idea what you meant by "lexically determined." I suspect that I mean exactly what you mean. The point is that a speaker can have a lexically determined difference in pronunciation of which he is completely unaware and indeed that he cannot detect, though others can. Therefore a lexically determined difference in pronunciation need not be conscious. > On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 10:12:30 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > lexically determined difference in pronunciation need not be > conscious. I reinvoke my brother's "so shity" for "so sigh et ee". SignatureFrank ess > [...]. The point is > that a speaker can have a lexically determined difference in > pronunciation of which he is completely unaware and indeed > that he cannot detect, though others can. Therefore a > lexically determined difference in pronunciation need not be > conscious. Like when Labov discovered that certain people (in New York?) who do not distinguish "sauce" and "source" actually pronounce them differently? > > [...]. The point is > > that a speaker can have a lexically determined difference in [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Like when Labov discovered that certain people (in New York?) who do not > distinguish "sauce" and "source" actually pronounce them differently? That doesn't make sense -- can you quote what he actually said? (or provlde a ref. in the CAL version, not the new Cambridge version) On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 20:14:25 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in <news:2f027171-ca67-47bb-96b9-c17e503a6cc9@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >>> [...]. The point is >>> that a speaker can have a lexically determined difference in >>> pronunciation of which he is completely unaware and indeed >>> that he cannot detect, though others can. Therefore a >>> lexically determined difference in pronunciation need not be >>> conscious. >> Like when Labov discovered that certain people (in New >> York?) who do not distinguish "sauce" and "source" >> actually pronounce them differently? > That doesn't make sense -- can you quote what he actually > said? (or provlde a ref. in the CAL version, not the new > Cambridge version) It makes perfectly good sense and is exactly what I've been talking about. Sociolinguistic Patterns, p. 83, describing a reading passage designed to elicit possible minimal pairs in a natural setting: Less elegant is the collocation of "source of your information" with "tomato sauce". Here /ohr/ in <source> is compared to /oh/ in <sauce>; unless the /r/ is realized, these two words are generally reported as homonyms.[3] [3] Our recent spectrographic studies of this data show that <source> and <sauce> are usually not homonyms, even though the speaker thinks so and reports them as "the same." The second formant of the nucleus of the vowel in <source> is usually lower (further back in terms of the normal articulatory correlate), and in connected speech the first formant may also be lower (that is, the vowel is higher). During the minimal pair test, the vowels are brought closer together, but the second formant differences persist. The phonetic differentiation of these nuclei is the same as that normally found in r-pronouncing dialects. And as I said before, Larry Trask has a discussion with example on p. 291 of _Historical Linguistics_. Brian > On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 20:14:25 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > the /r/ is realized, these two words are generally > reported as homonyms.[3] What does "generally reported" mean? > [3] Our recent spectrographic studies of this data > show that <source> and <sauce> are usually not > homonyms, even though the speaker thinks so > and reports them as "the same." The second If the speaker reports them as the same, then they _are_ the same. > formant of the nucleus of the vowel in <source> > is usually lower (further back in terms of the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > phonetic differentiation of these nuclei is the same > as that normally found in r-pronouncing dialects. Yet for these speakers, there is no phonemic distinction. How many tokens in connected speech were studied, to discover whether a consistent distinction is made? Was the study conducted with illiterate subjects? (Probably not, since it would be very hard to find New Yorkers who had never been exposed to reading.) To what extent is any effect the result of being required to "sound the r's" in words where an r is written, even though it means nothing in their speech? > And as I said before, Larry Trask has a discussion with > example on p. 291 of _Historical Linguistics_. > > Brian Sun, 3 Jan 2010 05:53:14 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 20:14:25 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] >tokens in connected speech were studied, to discover whether a >consistent distinction is made? So concious distinctions and unconcious distinctions always coincide? Seems unlikely to me, seeing that speaking and understanding are no concious activities on the articulation and recognition level, but they are on a cognitive level. People know what someone said, but not _how_ they said it, i.e. they don't know which phonemes were used, often they don't even know which words were used. It even occurs that people don't know what language was spoken. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com Of axes and axles http://rudhar.eu/lingtics/eixoveio/en.htm > [ ... ] > People know what someone said, but not > _how_ they said it, i.e. they don't know which phonemes were used, > often they don't even know which words were used. It even occurs that > people don't know what language was spoken. I hesitate to enter a discussion in which most (all?) of the present participants are more knowledgeable about linguistics than I am, but what you say is certainly in agreement with my everyday experience and is probably part of the experience of most people who live in a culture which is not their original one. My wife and I normally watch films on television in French, though it is not the native language of either of us. It often happens that one will say "what did [s]he say?", and the other will almost never be able to repeat the words but will usually have grasped the sense. Your last sentence is true of my wife, but not of me. I am rarely if ever in doubt about what language someone has used (if it's one I know, i.e. English, French or Spanish), and I always know what language I am speaking. My wife, however, hears sense and not words, and frequently can't say what language someone has used, and will often reply in a different one -- that is quite unconscious; it's certainly not deliberate. Signatureathel > > [ ... ] > > People know what someone said, but not [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > other will almost never be able to repeat the words but will usually > have grasped the sense. That has nothing to do with alloglotty! It is true of any situation. You can virtually _never_ repeat verbatim exactly what someone has just said. Memorizing texts is a special and arduous exercise that was imposed on English (and some American) schoolboys until a century or so ago. (In my school half a century ago, we were required to memorize a handful of poems.) > Your last sentence is true of my wife, but not of me. I am rarely if > ever in doubt about what language someone has used (if it's one I know, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > different one -- that is quite unconscious; it's certainly not > deliberate. Hopefully only when she knows (at some level) that her interlocutor speaks the language she is using. Early studies of code-switching found that that's the _sine qua non_ of doing it. > > > [ ... ] > > > People know what someone said, but not [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > speaks the language she is using. Early studies of code-switching > found that that's the _sine qua non_ of doing it. A case has been reported to me by a usually reliable reporter of picking up a book, reading a few pages, suddenly realizing it is written in Dutch rather than English, and thereafter finding it completely incomprehensible. A effect that doubtless only hold for rather closely related languages. If it matters much, the person who made the report is somewhat dyslexic. DKleinecke filted: >> > My wife, however, hears sense and not words, and frequently >> > can't say what language someone has used, and will often reply in a [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >languages. If it matters much, the person who made the report is >somewhat dyslexic. I had an odd experience a number of years ago...browsing the science-fiction section at a local independent bookstore (that alone should tell you how long ago this must have been), I found a book that looked interesting...the cover blurb said it was set in a future where the Chinese had leaped ahead of other nations in space exploration and were now the dominant force in the solar system...couldn't afford to buy it then, but I made a mental note to remember the title: "The Middle Kingdom"...easy enough, I thought; that's the literal meaning of the name of China itself.... A year or so later, I started looking for it again, and nobody seemed to have any evidence of its existence...the store I'd originally seen it in had closed...finally, I found it again...the title was actually "Chung Kuo", a Romanized version of the same characters....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > DKleinecke filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > closed...finally, I found it again...the title was actually "Chung Kuo", a > Romanized version of the same characters....r I was once in a general knowledge quiz with a junior diplomat recently returned from Moscow. The question was something like "who wrote the Cherry Orchard" and she was half way through writing the name in Cyrillic when she realised. SignatureOnline waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk >> DKleinecke filted: >>> A case has been reported to me by a usually reliable reporter of [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Cherry Orchard" and she was half way through writing the name in > Cyrillic when she realised. That sort of thing with writing systems is just so easy to slip into. There are some words and especially names you may have never seen except in [name your own script] and to write it in English, you have to go through a much more complicated thought process than simple recall. Even worse, if for example you're in German, France, Spain or wherever and you have to think of their spelling conventions too. SignatureRob Bannister > >> DKleinecke filted: > >>> A case has been reported to me by a usually reliable reporter of [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > worse, if for example you're in German, France, Spain or wherever and > you have to think of their spelling conventions too. In the olden days, it was proper to print the various European languages in their own appropriate typefaces -- particularly in a German work in Fraktur, quotes from English, French, or Latin would be in Antiqua (the term for our ordinary Roman style). It would never occur to a 19th-century Semitist to transliterate the forms being discussed (except sometimes for Ethiopic and often for cuneiform, simply because printers weren't likely to have full fonts of those characters). OTOH I haven't come across comparative IE works of that era that cite Armenian or even Sanskrit in their own scripts. > I had an odd experience a number of years ago...browsing the > science-fiction section at a local independent bookstore (that alone [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > it in had closed...finally, I found it again...the title was actually > "Chung Kuo", a Romanized version of the same characters....r By David Wingrove, it would appear: <http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?3195> Seems to be a series: <http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?David_Wingrove> Brian (feels like I'm on rec.arts.sf.written) SignatureDay 337 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project >> Your last sentence is true of my wife, but not of me. I am rarely if >> ever in doubt about what language someone has used (if it's one I know, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > speaks the language she is using. Early studies of code-switching > found that that's the _sine qua non_ of doing it. I can report at least one exception to that. When my Belgian ex-wife and I were in a mixed-language conversation, she would sometimes speak to me in Dutch after addressing someone else in French. I don't speak Dutch, and of course she knew that, but apparently she had my native language mentally tagged as "not-French", and the most common not-French language in Belgium is Dutch. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. Peter Moylan: >>> Your last sentence is true of my wife, but not of me. I am rarely >>> if ever in doubt about what language someone has used (if it's one [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > native language mentally tagged as "not-French", and the most common > not-French language in Belgium is Dutch. I think I've told this before, but... It was my first time in Paris, concentrating hard on pulling out strings and strands of my long neglected school French. I was stopped in the Metro by an American woman asking if this was the line to ... the Opera or wherever. I answered her in French. I realized my mistake after a few words and started over again. In Norwegian. Third time, with a serious effort to avoid French again, I finally managed. SignatureTrond Engen Sat, 09 Jan 2010 02:15:40 +0100: Trond Engen <trondnet@engen.priv.no>: in sci.lang: >I think I've told this before, but... It was my first time in Paris, >concentrating hard on pulling out strings and strands of my long [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >again. In Norwegian. Third time, with a serious effort to avoid French >again, I finally managed. In my three months, 4 days a week, immersion work experience in Paderborn in 1987, after a long day of interesting and tiring work with lots of discussions, monolingually in German, upon returning to the hotel, in the lobby I was approached by some students who wanted to interview me for some project or whatever it was. In English. Then suddenly I found I could no longer speak English. I just had only German available and spoke it automatically whatever I wanted to say. This in spite of the fact that my German was only in the process of improving then, but had always been weaker than my English, and still is today. These days however, I can work on a translation English to Dutch while listening to Portuguese radio and understanding everything, talking Dutch with my wife or daughter, and then when someone phones me in German I can immediately speak it fluently (with the ever remaining, occasional mistake, of course). So flexibility, like the languages themselves, can be trained too. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Sat, 09 Jan 2010 02:15:40 +0100: Trond Engen <trondnet@engen.priv.no>: > in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > So flexibility, like the languages themselves, can be trained too. Those people involved in the tourist industry in Europe always amaze me. We've tried, three of us, speaking three different languages at one of them and switching which language we were speaking - never once caught the man out. The guy on the train I took from Paris to Moscow was fluent in English, French, German, Russian and Italian (those were only the ones I heard him use). I was never quite sure whether he was German or Russian, but he was damned good. SignatureRob Bannister > I think I've told this before, but... It was my first time in Paris, > concentrating hard on pulling out strings and strands of my long [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > again. In Norwegian. Third time, with a serious effort to avoid French > again, I finally managed. This reminds me of the first time I used a taxi in Italy, in 2007. I had been traveling in Switzerland, first the German-speaking part and then the French-speaking part. My Italian is minimal, but I know how to pronounce the name of my hotel and the street it was on, and I'd looked up how to pronounce the number. So I recited the address to the cab driver and he repeated it back to me. And in the space of about 2 seconds, my brain produced: Oui! Ja! Yes! Si! I'm not entirely certain that that was the order of the languages, but I do know it took me four tries to come up with the Italian word. SignatureMark Brader | "Design an idiot-proof system, and the universe Toronto | will spontaneously evolve a higher grade of idiot msb@vex.net | that is able to circumvent it." My text in this article is in the public domain. Peter Moylan filted: >> Hopefully only when she knows (at some level) that her interlocutor >> speaks the language she is using. Early studies of code-switching [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >mentally tagged as "not-French", and the most common not-French language >in Belgium is Dutch. Not as great an error as it could have been, I suppose...English is about as close to Dutch as any language can be without actually being Dutch....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? 8 Jan 2010 20:10:30 -0800: R H Draney <dadoctah@spamcop.net>: in sci.lang: >Not as great an error as it could have been, I suppose...English is about as >close to Dutch as any language can be without actually being Dutch....r Frisian may be in between the two. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com >>> Your last sentence is true of my wife, but not of me. I am rarely if >>> ever in doubt about what language someone has used (if it's one I know, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > mentally tagged as "not-French", and the most common not-French language > in Belgium is Dutch. I'd say there is definitely a "not-my language" switch in the brain. On the few occasions I've been involved in multi-language conversations, I tend to plump for German, but there was that time in Riga when I was not only talking to my fellow travellers in English, French, German and Russian (some spoke more than one language themselves, so there was some language switching), but I foolishly thought I could try out the little Swedish I had been learning on some Finnish sailors. Foolish, because this involved more vodka than my linguistic capacity could take - as we were walking together down the street somewhat later, someone bumped into me and I tried to say "Sorry" and my personal Language Centre said "Which language, moron?", after which I just couldn't talk for about 15 minutes in any language at all. SignatureRob Bannister On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 05:53:14 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in <news:f4770410-4b6d-4e4e-80a8-70cac7f57854@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english: [...] >> Sociolinguistic Patterns, p. 83, describing a reading >> passage designed to elicit possible minimal pairs in a >> natural setting: >> Less elegant is the collocation of "source of your >> information" with "tomato sauce". Here /ohr/ in >> <source> is compared to /oh/ in <sauce>; unless >> the /r/ is realized, these two words are generally >> reported as homonyms.[3] > What does "generally reported" mean? >> [3] Our recent spectrographic studies of this data >> show that <source> and <sauce> are usually not >> homonyms, even though the speaker thinks so >> and reports them as "the same." > If the speaker reports them as the same, then they _are_ > the same. You might be able to make such a flat statement in this case; I don't know whether the difference was readily perceptible to speakers who did have the distinction or was perceptible only to a trained ear or instruments. You can't make one in the case that Larry discusses, however. In that case the speaker had a near-merger of the PULL and POOL vowels: he couldn't distinguish them when he produced them or when he listened to recordings of his own speech, but acquaintances who did not have the near-merger could quite reliably distinguish them in *his* speech. So were his PULL and POOL vowels the same? To him, yes; to acquaintances who retained the distinction, no. [...] Brian > On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 05:53:14 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > and POOL vowels the same? To him, yes; to acquaintances who > retained the distinction, no. Why have you switched to an example you have not presented? On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 12:20:53 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in <news:9eada17a-10a5-499f-8590-a60863f4b1bd@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 05:53:14 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in >> <news:f4770410-4b6d-4e4e-80a8-70cac7f57854@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> >> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >> [...] >>>> Sociolinguistic Patterns, p. 83, describing a reading >>>> passage designed to elicit possible minimal pairs in a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>>> the /r/ is realized, these two words are generally >>>> reported as homonyms.[3] >>> What does "generally reported" mean? >>>> [3] Our recent spectrographic studies of this data >>>> show that <source> and <sauce> are usually not >>>> homonyms, even though the speaker thinks so >>>> and reports them as "the same." >>> If the speaker reports them as the same, then they _are_ >>> the same. >> You might be able to make such a flat statement in this >> case; I don't know whether the difference was readily [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> and POOL vowels the same? To him, yes; to acquaintances who >> retained the distinction, no. > Why have you switched to an example you have not > presented? I've referred you to this example at least twice in this discussion. By page number. In a book with which you've given evidence of some familiarity. I've had it and Larry's accompanying discussion in mind right along. I gave the quotation above only because you specifically asked Bart for it. Are you interested in scoring what you fondly believe are debating points, or would you like to bring your knowledge a bit more up to date? > On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 12:20:53 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > quotation above only because you specifically asked Bart for > it. it doesn't happen to be alongside the computer. > Are you interested in scoring what you fondly believe are > debating points, or would you like to bring your knowledge a > bit more up to date?- Why don't you look up the footnote and tell us where this example was actually published and discussed? > On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 05:53:14 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > and POOL vowels the same? To him, yes; to acquaintances who > retained the distinction, no. This reminds me somewhat of the portuguese <ou> that many people think has merged with <ô>. > On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 20:14:25 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > And as I said before, Larry Trask has a discussion with > example on p. 291 of _Historical Linguistics_. But here you're talking about words that people don't distinguish. The original scenario was one in which people did distinguish the words, but hadn't realised that the difference between them was T vs D. > On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 20:14:25 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > Brian I wonder whether anyone has made a study of our non-rhotic, non-AmE to see just how much or little Rs colour our speech. SignatureRob Bannister > Let's see you find someone who doesn't realize that "either" and > "ether" are different words. I thought this had been covered: only some people pronounce "either" with an "ee" vowel, so the words don't sound remotely similar. SignatureRob Bannister >> Let's see you find someone who doesn't realize that "either" and >> "ether" are different words. > >I thought this had been covered: only some people pronounce "either" >with an "ee" vowel, And pronounce "th" the soft way... >so the words don't sound remotely similar. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >> Let's see you find someone who doesn't realize that "either" and >> "ether" are different words. > > I thought this had been covered: only some people pronounce "either" > with an "ee" vowel, so the words don't sound remotely similar. I pronounce "either" with "ee". Are you claiming that if *everyone* pronounced it with "ee" then it would sound similar to "ether" when I say it, but because some *other* people don't pronounce it that way, it *doesn't* sound similar to "ether" when *I* say it? On Jan 1, 7:14 pm, Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote: > >> Let's see you find someone who doesn't realize that "either" and > >> "ether" are different words. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > say it, but because some *other* people don't pronounce it that way, it > *doesn't* sound similar to "ether" when *I* say it? Rob seems to have been taking Brian lessons. The Chadicist Paul Newman became a lawyer when he retired from Indiana U at 65 (specializing in intellectual property). Maybe that would be a suitable career path for these two. On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 17:16:03 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in <news:fe68abae-7f66-4d9b-a606-1949701dd953@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > On Jan 1, 7:14 pm, Harlan Messinger > <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>> Let's see you find someone who doesn't realize that "either" and >>>> "ether" are different words. >>> I thought this had been covered: only some people >>> pronounce "either" with an "ee" vowel, so the words >>> don't sound remotely similar. >> I pronounce "either" with "ee". Are you claiming that if >> *everyone* pronounced it with "ee" then it would sound >> similar to "ether" when I say it, but because some >> *other* people don't pronounce it that way, it *doesn't* >> sound similar to "ether" when *I* say it? > Rob seems to have been taking Brian lessons. No, he's just confused, probably in part because your comment made no sense at that point. One does hope, however, that he meant '... don't sound remotely similar to those who don't pronounce "either" with an "ee" vowel', as otherwise his conclusion would, as Harlan notes, be utterly ridiculous. [...] Brian > On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 17:16:03 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > otherwise his conclusion would, as Harlan notes, be utterly > ridiculous. You're claiming that Rob is so stupid he didn't grasp that? A far more reasonable interpretation is that he was unGriceanly picking a nit for the purpose of being disagreeable. Do you really not comprehend my statement, which was in the context of someone having pointed to precisely the either/ether minimal pair very shortly before? No, you comprehended it perfectly. You simply wanted to pretend to be Jack McCoy in cross examination. >>> Let's see you find someone who doesn't realize that "either" and >>> "ether" are different words. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > say it, but because some *other* people don't pronounce it that way, it > *doesn't* sound similar to "ether" when *I* say it? Definitely not, although I'm sure there are some words where T and D are freely interchanged without most people even noticing. While we're on this business of phonemes and allophones, is there a minimal pair for the vowels of "boo" and "book"? I can't think of one, and the way these vowels occur in various dialects doesn't even seem to be regular. SignatureRob Bannister > Definitely not, although I'm sure there are some words where T and D are > freely interchanged without most people even noticing. I'm sure there aren't (unless there are recognized cases of free variation, as in eeconomics vs. eckonomics -- the fact that these are recognized as two different pronunciations of the same word shows that /iy/ [Ij] and /e/ [E] are distinct phonemes). > While we're on this business of phonemes and allophones, is there a > minimal pair for the vowels of "boo" and "book"? I can't think of one, > and the way these vowels occur in various dialects doesn't even seem to > be regular. Luke/look kook/cook pool/pull suit/soot soon/Sun (Yat Sen) Sat, 2 Jan 2010 15:07:09 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >I'm sure there aren't (unless there are recognized cases of free >variation, as in eeconomics vs. eckonomics -- the fact that these are >recognized as two different pronunciations of the same word shows >that /iy/ [Ij] and /e/ [E] are distinct phonemes). /iy/ is not /Ij/ except maybe in Australia. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com Of axes and axles http://rudhar.eu/lingtics/eixoveio/en.htm > Sat, 2 Jan 2010 15:07:09 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > /iy/ is not /Ij/ except maybe in Australia. Would you care to retype that, using / / and [ ] correctly? And, even after you type it correctly, you're simply wrong. Sun, 3 Jan 2010 05:54:24 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >> Sat, 2 Jan 2010 15:07:09 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" >> <gramma...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Would you care to retype that, using / / and [ ] correctly? /iy/ is not [Ij] except maybe in Australia. It was a careless mistake on my part, you are right. >And, even after you type it correctly, you're simply wrong. Simply? SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 19:43:16 +0100, Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.eu> wrote in <news:p8p1k59u072h0tuaaojhgmq7sim7c9k57o@4ax.com> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english: [...] > /iy/ is not [Ij] except maybe in Australia. I'm not sure that it's [Ij] anywhere, but it most certainly can be [Ii]; it often is in RP. In broad Australian it may even start at [@]. [...] Brian > Sun, 3 Jan 2010 05:54:24 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Simply? /iy/ is [ij], unless you have a very peculiar understanding of [j]. Sun, 3 Jan 2010 12:16:33 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >> /iy/ is not [Ij] except maybe in Australia. >> It was a careless mistake on my part, you are right. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >/iy/ is [ij], unless you have a very peculiar understanding of [j]. I've seen \j\ advertised as semivowel and approximant. So what is it? This may be interesting: http://www.uiowa.edu/~acadtech/phonetics/english/frameset.html SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Sun, 3 Jan 2010 12:16:33 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > This may be interesting:http://www.uiowa.edu/~acadtech/phonetics/english/frameset.html What the hell do you mean by \ \ ? "Semivowel" is a phonological term. "Approximant" is a phonetic term. Mon, 4 Jan 2010 04:29:00 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >> I've seen \j\ advertised as semivowel and approximant. So what is it? >> >> This may be interesting:http://www.uiowa.edu/~acadtech/phonetics/english/frameset.html > >What the hell do you mean by \ \ ? Same as Merriam-Webster of course. >"Semivowel" is a phonological term. "Approximant" is a phonetic term. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Mon, 4 Jan 2010 04:29:00 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Same as Merriam-Webster of course. Meaning you take no position on the theoretical status of what you're talking about? > >"Semivowel" is a phonological term. "Approximant" is a phonetic term. If you already knew that you were talking about two different theoretical domains, why did you bother to ask? Mon, 4 Jan 2010 07:03:17 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >> Mon, 4 Jan 2010 04:29:00 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" >> <gramma...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Meaning you take no position on the theoretical status of what you're >talking about? Yes. And there two good reasons why that is often useful: 1) That status may not be relevant to the discussion at hand. 2) That status is precisely what is hoped to be the outcome of the discussion at hand. In both cases having to use the symbols, and being critisised if the choice may be less than perfect, is counter-productive. >> >"Semivowel" is a phonological term. "Approximant" is a phonetic term. > >If you already knew that you were talking about two different >theoretical domains, why did you bother to ask? I'm still seriously trying to understand the true nature of [j], in a phonetic sense, as opposed to [i] and as opposed to the voiced counterpart of the ich-laut. Greek for example has all three, phonemically. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > I'm still seriously trying to understand the true nature of [j], in a > phonetic sense, as opposed to [i] and as opposed to the voiced > counterpart of the ich-laut. Greek for example has all three, > phonemically. As an approximant, [j] has a narrower constriction than its vowel counterpart [i]. As a consonant, it also typically has a lower intensity and a shorter duration than [i]. The voiced palatal fricative (which I'll notate here as [J]) is even narrower than its approximant counterpart [j], to the point of having fricated (turbulent/noisy) airflow. Again, as a consonant, it typically has a lower intensity and a shorter duration than [i], though as a fricative, its intensity is rather high due to the frication, and in some cases, could even be louder than a vowel (especially high vowels, which are typically the lowest intensity vowels). Summary: oral constriction: [i] > [j] > [J] (narrowest) intensity: [i] > [J] > [j] (softest) duration: [i] > [j],[J] (shortest) If you look at a spectrogram of [j] and [J], the primary difference you'll see is that [j] is dominated by periodic sound (formants, harmonics) while [J] is dominated by aperiodic sound (white noise), though both consonants have a mix of the two types of sound. Nathan SignatureNathan Sanders Linguistics Program Williams College http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/ >> Definitely not, although I'm sure there are some words where T and D are >> freely interchanged without most people even noticing. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Luke/look kook/cook pool/pull suit/soot soon/Sun (Yat Sen) Thanks for the examples, although they wouldn't work for all dialects of English - pool/pull seems to be the one that covers most, though not all brands of English, so I suppose there are other similar ones like fool/full. SignatureRob Bannister > >> Definitely not, although I'm sure there are some words where T and D are > >> freely interchanged without most people even noticing. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > English - pool/pull seems to be the one that covers most, though not all > brands of English, so I suppose there are other similar ones like fool/full. That's a good one because it's a triplet with fuel/fool/full (cf. pule/ pool/pull -- but "pule/puling" isn't exactly common). >>> Definitely not, although I'm sure there are some words where T and D are >>> freely interchanged without most people even noticing. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > English - pool/pull seems to be the one that covers most, though not all > brands of English, so I suppose there are other similar ones like fool/full. pool/pull doesn't really belong on the list for speakers of my dialect (and I hadn't noticed that other dialects differ in this respect). For me, "pool" is something like ['puwUl]. The other "oo"s are handled as single syllable nuclei. Bart Mathias [...] >>>> While we're on this business of phonemes and allophones, is there a >>>> minimal pair for the vowels of "boo" and "book"? I can't think of [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > For me, "pool" is something like ['puwUl]. The other "oo"s are handled > as single syllable nuclei. RP and its relatives certainly treat "pool" as a monosyllable. But we could probably agree on "wood" and "wooed": "-oo" verbs seem to be a useful source for this purpose. SignatureMike. > [...] > >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > could probably agree on "wood" and "wooed": "-oo" verbs seem to be a > useful source for this purpose. Yep: would/would-wooed, could-cooed, should-shooed. Also, hood-who'd. However, someone will likely point out that the -ooed words aren't monomorphemic, and would argue that they therefore aren't truly minimal (I wouldn't be such a person). How about put-poot? (I don't like the example before -l, because the lateral warps the vowel.) Nathan SignatureNathan Sanders Linguistics Program Williams College http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/ > [...] >>>>> While we're on this business of phonemes and allophones, is there a [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > could probably agree on "wood" and "wooed": "-oo" verbs seem to be a > useful source for this purpose. If I understand you, I think we'd disagree. To me (until someone shows me a spectrogram proving me wrong), "mood" and "mooed" are homophones. Bart Mathias >> [...] >>>>>> While we're on this business of phonemes and allophones, is [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > If I understand you, I think we'd disagree. To me (until someone shows > me a spectrogram proving me wrong), "mood" and "mooed" are homophones. I sometimes have that problem, but screen-wipes usually sort it out! I wrote "wood", not "mood". SignatureMike. >>>> Definitely not, although I'm sure there are some words where T and D are >>>> freely interchanged without most people even noticing. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > pool/pull doesn't really belong on the list for speakers of my dialect > (and I hadn't noticed that other dialects differ in this respect). But it's the only one of the pairs in the list (bar the last, but I'm uncertain about how to pronounce that last word) that I disinguish! SignatureOnline waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk >>> While we're on this business of phonemes and allophones, is there a >>> minimal pair for the vowels of "boo" and "book"? I can't think of one, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > brands of English, so I suppose there are other similar ones like > fool/full. pool/pull is the one member of that list that I would have liked to disqualify. There are too many dialects, including my own, where that pair has both a vowel quality difference and a length difference, leaving it unclear as to which of those two properties is the more significant distinction. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. Sat, 09 Jan 2010 11:22:49 +1100: Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp@retep>: in sci.lang: >pool/pull is the one member of that list that I would have liked to >disqualify. There are too many dialects, including my own, where that >pair has both a vowel quality difference and a length difference, >leaving it unclear as to which of those two properties is the more >significant distinction. Not allowed in phoneme science!! Go be ashamed of yourself! SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 01:35:14 +0100, Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.eu> wrote in <news:9pjfk5dgkulbmcvdm16jmgb64v0rbqdtrn@4ax.com> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > Sat, 09 Jan 2010 11:22:49 +1100: Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp@retep>: in > sci.lang: >>pool/pull is the one member of that list that I would have liked to >>disqualify. There are too many dialects, including my own, where that >>pair has both a vowel quality difference and a length difference, >>leaving it unclear as to which of those two properties is the more >>significant distinction. > Not allowed in phoneme science!! [...] Irrelevant even if it were true: he's obviously talking about the *phones*. (Besides, the double distinction is acknowledged in one standard analysis of RP and similar varieties: the corresponding phonemes are notated /u:/ and /U/.) Brian [...] > While we're on this business of phonemes and allophones, is there a > minimal pair for the vowels of "boo" and "book"? I can't think of one, > and the way these vowels occur in various dialects doesn't even seem > to be regular. Do you want them spelt the same? If it's just the sounds, there's "pull" and "pool" and a couple of others. Plus "pule" as a bonus. SignatureMike. > [...] >> While we're on this business of phonemes and allophones, is there a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Do you want them spelt the same? If it's just the sounds, there's "pull" > and "pool" and a couple of others. Plus "pule" as a bonus. Thanks, but Peter D gave me some. "Pule" doesn't work for most English dialects because of the intruding y which also occurs in some people's "suit" and a very few people's "Luke". SignatureRob Bannister On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 08:11:54 +0800, Robert Bannister <robban1@bigpond.com> wrote in <news:7qcq2aFht3U3@mid.individual.net> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >>> While we're on this business of phonemes and allophones, is there a >>> minimal pair for the vowels of "boo" and "book"? I can't think of one, >>> and the way these vowels occur in various dialects doesn't even seem >>> to be regular. >> Do you want them spelt the same? If it's just the sounds, there's "pull" >> and "pool" and a couple of others. Plus "pule" as a bonus. > Thanks, but Peter D gave me some. "Pule" doesn't work for > most English dialects because of the intruding y I rather think that that was Mike's point: that the /p_l/ frame allows a three-way contrast, /U/, /u:/, and /ju:/. > which also occurs in some people's "suit" and a very few > people's "Luke". Brian > On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 08:11:54 +0800, Robert Bannister > <robban1@bigpond.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I rather think that that was Mike's point: that the /p_l/ > frame allows a three-way contrast, /U/, /u:/, and /ju:/. I don't say "pule" often enough to be sure, but it seems to me that the vowel in "fuel" (forgetting the j for a moment) is not the same as that in "fool". I am sure that I pronounce the noun with quite a short u because it goes into a glide something like "fyooyul"; with the verb, I might get an almost pure vowel, but I think it's somewhat higher or tenser (I'm not sure which) than "fool". SignatureRob Bannister On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 08:21:16 +0800, Robert Bannister <robban1@bigpond.com> wrote in <news:7qfevuF6f9U1@mid.individual.net> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english: [...] > I don't say "pule" often enough to be sure, but it seems > to me that the vowel in "fuel" (forgetting the j for a > moment) is not the same as that in "fool". [...] They're certainly not the same for me: <fuel> is /'fju:@l/, while <fool> is /fu:l/. Brian Sun, 03 Jan 2010 06:36:51 +0800: Robert Bannister <robban1@bigpond.com>: in sci.lang: >> I pronounce "either" with "ee". Are you claiming that if *everyone* >> pronounced it with "ee" then it would sound similar to "ether" when I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Definitely not, although I'm sure there are some words where T and D are >freely interchanged without most people even noticing. With. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com Of axes and axles http://rudhar.eu/lingtics/eixoveio/en.htm > Sun, 03 Jan 2010 06:36:51 +0800: Robert Bannister > <robb...@bigpond.com>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > With. If he'd written "with," his point would have been totally lost. (He's still wrong, though.) >> Sun, 03 Jan 2010 06:36:51 +0800: Robert Bannister >> <robb...@bigpond.com>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > (He's > still wrong, though.) Oh. Well. I took Ruud's "With" as an example of the thesis (in which T and D are freely interchanged) and not a contradiction of the "without" statement. But in a sense, he is wrong, for the interchangeability of T and D is not free, but follows certain usage patterns, which may be regional or dialectal. "wiTout" "wiDout". I associate most of the "wiD- with Rightpondian usage. Still, I say "wiDin", more frequently than I say "wiTin"...I think. SignaturePat Durkin durkinpa at msn.com Wisconsin > >> Sun, 03 Jan 2010 06:36:51 +0800: Robert Bannister > >> <robb...@bigpond.com>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > I associate most of the "wiD- with Rightpondian usage. Still, I say > "wiDin", more frequently than I say "wiTin"...I think. Again, free variation. Not evidence that there's no phonemic distinction! Singers are easily taught to use wiD and not wiT (it's always better to sing voiced than voiceless sounds, for obvious reasons). It's almost impossible to teach the use of preferable options when the options don't involve a phonemic distinction, without a basic phonetics course (of the type Ruud has never had, which is why his observations sometimes show the most surprising gaps). Sun, 3 Jan 2010 09:40:56 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >options don't involve a phonemic distinction, without a basic >phonetics course (of the type Ruud has never had, which is why his >observations sometimes show the most surprising gaps). Suggestions are not enough, what is needed to convince is concrete examples. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com Sun, 3 Jan 2010 11:05:02 -0600: "Pat Durkin" <durkinpa@msn.com>: in sci.lang: >>> Sun, 03 Jan 2010 06:36:51 +0800: Robert Bannister >>> <robb...@bigpond.com>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >T and D are freely interchanged) and not a contradiction of the >"without" statement. That's the correct interpretation. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com >>> Sun, 03 Jan 2010 06:36:51 +0800: Robert Bannister >>> <robb...@bigpond.com>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > I associate most of the "wiD- with Rightpondian usage. Still, I say > "wiDin", more frequently than I say "wiTin"...I think. I associate "wiT" with Scottish accents, but most of the time I wouldn't even notice, in the same way I rarely notice those funny people who pronounce the middle s of "houses" as s instead of z. SignatureRob Bannister On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 05:55:19 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in <news:048a0e27-7d4c-4e43-9fdd-c11ae0d3f638@s3g2000yqs.googlegroups.com> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >> Sun, 03 Jan 2010 06:36:51 +0800: Robert Bannister >> <robb...@bigpond.com>: in sci.lang: >>>> I pronounce "either" with "ee". Are you claiming that >>>> if *everyone* pronounced it with "ee" then it would >>>> sound similar to "ether" when I say it, but because >>>> some *other* people don't pronounce it that way, it >>>> *doesn't* sound similar to "ether" when *I* say it? >>> Definitely not, although I'm sure there are some words >>> where T and D are freely interchanged without most >>> people even noticing. >> With. > If he'd written "with," his point would have been totally > lost. (He's still wrong, though.) In my experience he's correct: people don't generally notice which pronunciation has been used. They do, on the other hand, generally notice which pronunciation of <tomato> or <aunt> has been used. In both cases they are *capable* of noticing, since the distinction is between phonemes, but in the case of <with> they generally don't. Brian > On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 05:55:19 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > noticing, since the distinction is between phonemes, but in > the case of <with> they generally don't. And _that_ is because (a) no one has ever pointed out the variation, and (b) being a grammatical particle it goes by too quickly to be noticed. > On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 05:55:19 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > noticing, since the distinction is between phonemes, but in > the case of <with> they generally don't. Istm that the tomato/aunt cases are more conspicuous because they involve vowels. Vowels seem to me much, much more important for intelligibility than consonants. > > On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 05:55:19 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > > <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > involve vowels. Vowels seem to me much, much more important for > intelligibility than consonants.- There's also pernicious homonymy with "ant." >>> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 05:55:19 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >>> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > There's also pernicious homonymy with "ant." Or in BrE, "aren't". SignatureRob Bannister >> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 05:55:19 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > involve vowels. Vowels seem to me much, much more important for > intelligibility than consonants. It's not just that. Vowels, especially glides, are the main way English speakers distinguish regional accents. Some people may have an awareness that in SW England they substitute z for s, but when we're trying to guess whether someone comes from New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Canada, Ireland, Scotland or from various parts of the USA or England, then it's the vowels we listen out for. SignatureRob Bannister > [ ... ] >> Istm that the tomato/aunt cases are more conspicuous because they >> involve vowels. Vowels seem to me much, much more important for >> intelligibility than consonants. It's curious you should say that, because many Spanish people feel that Portuguese (as spoken in Portugal) is unintelligible because it seems to consist entirely of consonants. > It's not just that. Vowels, especially glides, are the main way English > speakers distinguish regional accents. Some people may have an > awareness that in SW England they substitute z for s, but when we're > trying to guess whether someone comes from New Zealand, Australia, > South Africa, Canada, Ireland, Scotland or from various parts of the > USA or England, then it's the vowels we listen out for. In general I agree, but there are some prominent differences in consonants as well. Many Irish people pronounce th as an aspirated t. In Welsh accents v and f come closer together than they are in other forms of English. Signatureathel Mon, 4 Jan 2010 15:45:10 +0100: Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel_cb@yahoo.co.uk>: in sci.lang: >> [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Portuguese (as spoken in Portugal) is unintelligible because it seems >to consist entirely of consonants. Sometimes or often. Some parts of it however seem to consist entirely of vowels, nasals and liquids. http://rudhar.eu/foneport/en/noteport/notep016.htm#Note16b-Syllables http://rudhar.eu/foneport/en/noteport/notep016.htm#Note16c-VowelStretch SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote (04-01-2010 14:45): > António Marques wrote: >> Istm that the tomato/aunt cases are more conspicuous because they [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Portuguese (as spoken in Portugal) is unintelligible because it seems to > consist entirely of consonants. Precisely! In other words: the biggest obstacle to mutual understanding is that our vowel systems are different. They don't complain that we have different consonants. Our 9 vowels are more than their 5. Though it would be funny if we did have 10 (with barred-u bearing the same relationship to our /u/ that barred-i has to our /i/). But sometimes symmetrical systems are not the most handy. Sun, 3 Jan 2010 14:40:13 -0800 (PST): António Marques <entonio@gmail.com>: in sci.lang: >Vowels seem to me much, much more important for >intelligibility than consonants. ... says a native speaker of European Portuguese! SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com Ruud Harmsen wrote (04-01-2010 08:46): > Sun, 3 Jan 2010 14:40:13 -0800 (PST): António Marques > <entonio@gmail.com>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > .... says a native speaker of European Portuguese! Hey! It's not like we live in the other Iberia or something... Brian M. Scott: > On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 04:27:29 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Not if it's lexically determined. I can give a tentative example from Eastern Norwegian. After some vowels old /rð/ and /l/ have merged in retroflex ("tjukk") l, making 'sol' "sun" and 'jord' "earth" rhymes. According to a paper I read (and thought I'd saved but can't find now, as usual) there's still a difference in articulation. Not that I can hear it. SignatureTrond Engen > On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:11:22 +0100, Ruud Harmsen > <rh@rudhar.eu> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > you should note a speaker might make a consistent > distinction for years without ever noticing it. Noticing what? To me, "pressure" and "pleasure" don't rhyme. Until now it's never entered my mind even to think about whether they rhyme or not. I doubt I've ever compared the two words in any way. Why would most people have ever noticed anything at all about their respective pronunciations of these two words? Anyway, how about "measure" and "Mesher" or "leisure" (when pronounced with [lE]) and "Lesher"? > (It's not > really a very good example, though: <pleasure> has had a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Brian >> [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > "wreathed" is OK, but how often does the uninflected form occur: almost > never. I suspect you have forgotten the noun which is common enough. I wonder whether there is agreement about whether the plural "wreaths" is unvoiced or voiced. >> sheath sheathe > > Likewise. I don't think I've ever heard "wreathed" in uninflected form. I presume you meant "sheathe" - is that even a word? I would have expected "sheath" (unvoiced) with past forms "sheathed" (voiced or unvoiced according to taste). >> mouth (noun) mouth (verb) > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > one could think of endless examples to show that it was, including some > very common words like "life" and "live" (adjective). You could add s and z to that. > So there does seem > to be something special about the two th sounds. Is there any mechanism > that could explain why minimal pairs are so rare? SignatureRob Bannister [only to sci.lang and AUE] On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 06:58:30 +0800, Robert Bannister <robban1@bigpond.com> wrote in <news:7pvfspFu50U1@mid.individual.net> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.philosophy: [...] >>> wreath wreathe >> "wreathed" is OK, but how often does the uninflected form >> occur: almost never. > I suspect you have forgotten the noun which is common enough. I doubt it: his point is that the uninflected verb isn't common, irrespective of the status of the noun. [...] >>> sheath sheathe >> Likewise. I don't think I've ever heard "wreathed" in uninflected form. > I presume you meant "sheathe" - is that even a word? Of course. Used not only of swords and knives, but of cats' claws, and figuratively ('you need to mellow out a little bit and sheathe your claws'). [...] Brian > [only to sci.lang and AUE] > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I doubt it: his point is that the uninflected verb isn't > common, irrespective of the status of the noun. Sorry. I realised immediately after posting. It certainly is not commonly used. I would go so far as to suggest that the verb is at best moribund and that its past participle survives as an adjective. Perhaps the present participle too. > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > claws, and figuratively ('you need to mellow out a little > bit and sheathe your claws'). I don't think I've ever seen it written. I've heard it with both T and D, but I don't believe I've ever seen it, which is why I suspected the existence of an alternate verb "sheath". SignatureRob Bannister Wed, 30 Dec 2009 06:58:30 +0800: Robert Bannister <robban1@bigpond.com>: in sci.lang: >> If anyone doubted whether the difference between f and v was phonemic >> one could think of endless examples to show that it was, including some >> very common words like "life" and "live" (adjective). Etymology has the answer. Life used to be lif with a macron on the i. Live always had the final e, so the v/f in it was intervocalic, while in life it was not. The e in life is a recent misspelling. >You could add s and z to that. > >> So there does seem >> to be something special about the two th sounds. No, same rule, already pointed out by PTD: voiced when between vowels. Simple as that. >> Is there any mechanism >> that could explain why minimal pairs are so rare? Etymology, grammar, foreign loans. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com [philosophy, maths and physics removed] > Wed, 30 Dec 2009 06:58:30 +0800: Robert Bannister > <robban1@bigpond.com>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Live always had the final e, so the v/f in it was intervocalic, > while in life it was not. The e in life is a recent misspelling. A spelling that has existed for the best part of a millennium can hardly be described as "recent". And don't forget the OE dative form "lîfe", genitive "lîfes". SignatureJames On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:06:14 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote in <news:7puuomFv0lU1@mid.individual.net> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.philosophy: [...] > "either" and "ether" are not a minimal pair for many > (most?) native speakers; [...] They're not for me, but in the U.S. I'm in the minority. Brian > On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:06:14 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden > <acornish@ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > They're not for me, but in the U.S. I'm in the minority. I thought I should take the time to check a dictionary before I asked, but you turn out to belong to too much of a minority to impinge on Webster's Collegiate. /T/ or /D/? > > On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:06:14 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden > > <acorn...@ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > but you turn out to belong to too much of a minority to impinge on > Webster's Collegiate. /T/ or /D/? Surely he refers to the /'ayD@r/ pronunciation, not to a nonexistent */'iyT@r/. On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 15:02:09 -1000, Bart Mathias <mathias@hawaii.edu> wrote in <news:hhoqah$chi$1@news.eternal-september.org> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.philosophy: >> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:06:14 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden >> <acornish@ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote in >> <news:7puuomFv0lU1@mid.individual.net> in >> sci.math,sci.physics,sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.philosophy: >> [...] >>> "either" and "ether" are not a minimal pair for many >>> (most?) native speakers; [...] >> They're not for me, but in the U.S. I'm in the minority. > I thought I should take the time to check a dictionary > before I asked, but you turn out to belong to too much > of a minority to impinge on Webster's Collegiate. /T/ > or /D/? Eh? I have <either> with [aID-] and <ether> with [i:T-]. Brian > On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 15:02:09 -1000, Bart Mathias > <math...@hawaii.edu> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Eh? I have <either> with [aID-] and <ether> with [i:T-]. Most people don't settle exclusively on one or the other allomorph in cases of free variation. [sci.lang and AUE only] On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 05:56:49 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in <news:5c0b4fa5-d1b4-4f6b-905e-0f81721826f8@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.philosophy: [...] >> Eh? I have <either> with [aID-] and <ether> with [i:T-]. > Most people don't settle exclusively on one or the other > allomorph in cases of free variation. That's demonstrably false as a general statement: just think of <tomato> and <aunt>. There are obviously different kinds (or levels) of free variation. Many speakers have it at the individual level with <economics>, or with glottalization of stops; few have it with <tomato> or <aunt>, or with <adVERtisement> ~ <adverTISEment>. In my experience <either> is much more like <tomato> than like <economics>. Brian > [sci.lang and AUE only] > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > <adVERtisement> ~ <adverTISEment>. In my experience > <either> is much more like <tomato> than like <economics>. You do not understand the meaning of "free variation." Tomato and aunt are not free variants, but dialectal features. On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 12:19:38 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in <news:aa96a408-6d1e-4365-97af-68d723ca4984@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >> [sci.lang and AUE only] >> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 05:56:49 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in >> <news:5c0b4fa5-d1b4-4f6b-905e-0f81721826f8@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> >> in >> sci.math,sci.physics,sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.philosophy: >> [...] >>>> Eh? I have <either> with [aID-] and <ether> with [i:T-]. >>> Most people don't settle exclusively on one or the other >>> allomorph in cases of free variation. >> That's demonstrably false as a general statement: just think >> of <tomato> and <aunt>. There are obviously different kinds [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> <adVERtisement> ~ <adverTISEment>. In my experience >> <either> is much more like <tomato> than like <economics>. > You do not understand the meaning of "free variation." > Tomato and aunt are not free variants, but dialectal > features. Apparently you've changed your mind about <aunt>: four years ago in message <43CA7CAF.7699@worldnet.att.net> you wrote: "Free variation" is the facultative use of different phonemes in the same word, with no connotations whatsoever -- "envelope" and "aunt" are other words that exhibit it. Moreover, it depends on whose definition of 'free variation' you're using. I've seen some definitions (by linguists) that are broad enough to include the <tomato> and <aunt> variation and others that are not. And if you wish to insist on a restrictive definition, then your 'Most people' comment was irrelevant, because by such a definition <either> isn't (for me) an instance of free variation. > On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:06:14 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden > <acornish@ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > They're not for me, but in the U.S. I'm in the minority. Even so, I'm fairly confident that you and others with the same pronunciation, when singing the Gershwin song "Let's Call the Whole Thing Off", at the line "You say ee-ther and I say eye-ther", aren't in any danger of pronouncing "ee-ther" as "ether", and if someone else did, I'm fairly confident that your reaction would be, "It isn't 'ether', it's 'EE-DHER'". In other words, you don't perceive those of us who do say "ee-ther" to be saying it homophonically with "ether". Harlan wrote on Sun, 03 Jan 2010 11:19:52 -0500: >> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:06:14 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden >> <acornish@ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> >> They're not for me, but in the U.S. I'm in the minority. You know, I believe I use both pronunciations almost randomly. I was educated in Scotland but have lived most of my life in the US. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not [sci.lang and AUE only] On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 11:19:52 -0500, Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net> wrote in <news:7qbue3Fo7sU1@mid.individual.net> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.philosophy: >> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:06:14 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden >> <acornish@ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote in >> <news:7puuomFv0lU1@mid.individual.net> in >> sci.math,sci.physics,sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.philosophy: >> [...] >>> "either" and "ether" are not a minimal pair for many >>> (most?) native speakers; [...] >> They're not for me, but in the U.S. I'm in the minority. > Even so, I'm fairly confident that you and others with the same > pronunciation, when singing the Gershwin song "Let's Call the Whole [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > it's 'EE-DHER'". In other words, you don't perceive those of us who do > say "ee-ther" to be saying it homophonically with "ether". Of course not. Why would anyone imagine that we would? Brian > [sci.lang and AUE only] > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Of course not. Why would anyone imagine that we would? If [D] and [T] didn't represent a phonemic difference for people who say "eye-ther", then they wouldn't. Isn't whether [T] and [D] represent different phonemes, and supposed difficulties with all the minimal pairs, what this entire discussion is about? Or are you just all mindlessly spouting trivia about words that have one of those sounds or the other for no reason? On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 00:00:55 -0500, Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net> wrote in <news:7qdb19FuflU1@mid.individual.net> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >> [sci.lang and AUE only] >> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 11:19:52 -0500, Harlan Messinger >> <hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net> wrote in >> <news:7qbue3Fo7sU1@mid.individual.net> in >> sci.math,sci.physics,sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.philosophy: >>>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:06:14 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden >>>> <acornish@ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote in >>>> <news:7puuomFv0lU1@mid.individual.net> in >>>> sci.math,sci.physics,sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.philosophy: >>>> [...] >>>>> "either" and "ether" are not a minimal pair for many >>>>> (most?) native speakers; [...] >>>> They're not for me, but in the U.S. I'm in the minority. >>> Even so, I'm fairly confident that you and others with >>> the same pronunciation, when singing the Gershwin song [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>> you don't perceive those of us who do say "ee-ther" to >>> be saying it homophonically with "ether". >> Of course not. Why would anyone imagine that we would? > If [D] and [T] didn't represent a phonemic difference for > people who say "eye-ther", then they wouldn't. Isn't > whether [T] and [D] represent different phonemes, and > supposed difficulties with all the minimal pairs, what > this entire discussion is about? [...] Not really. It began, as I recall, with my observation that some linguists argue that standard English does not have distinct phonemes /T/ and /D/, but their arguments (which, though very unconvincing in my opinion, are nevertheless quite sophisticated) haven't been presented or discussed. There has been some discussion of why it's difficult to find minimal pairs, and there's been a lot of marginally related discussion. Brian Brian M. Scott wrote (04-01-2010 09:21): > On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 00:00:55 -0500, Harlan Messinger > <hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > minimal pairs, and there's been a lot of marginally related > discussion. Yes, and one of the points was that not everyone had the either/ether pair - and Harlan pointed out that even those who don't make the distinction. Now, if no one did imagine that you mightn't, what would have been the relevance of pointing out that you didn't have that pair? On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 11:18:13 +0000, António Marques <antonioprm@sapo.pt> wrote in <news:hhsipv$dep$1@news.eternal-september.org> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > Brian M. Scott wrote (04-01-2010 09:21): >> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 00:00:55 -0500, Harlan Messinger >> <hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net> wrote in >> <news:7qdb19FuflU1@mid.individual.net> in >> sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >>>> [sci.lang and AUE only] >>>> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 11:19:52 -0500, Harlan Messinger >>>> <hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net> wrote in >>>> <news:7qbue3Fo7sU1@mid.individual.net> in >>>> sci.math,sci.physics,sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.philosophy: >>>>>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:06:14 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden >>>>>> <acornish@ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote in >>>>>> <news:7puuomFv0lU1@mid.individual.net> in >>>>>> sci.math,sci.physics,sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.philosophy: >>>>>> [...] >>>>>>> "either" and "ether" are not a minimal pair for many >>>>>>> (most?) native speakers; [...] >>>>>> They're not for me, but in the U.S. I'm in the minority. >>>>> Even so, I'm fairly confident that you and others with >>>>> the same pronunciation, when singing the Gershwin song [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>>>> you don't perceive those of us who do say "ee-ther" to >>>>> be saying it homophonically with "ether". >>>> Of course not. Why would anyone imagine that we would? >>> If [D] and [T] didn't represent a phonemic difference for >>> people who say "eye-ther", then they wouldn't. Isn't >>> whether [T] and [D] represent different phonemes, and >>> supposed difficulties with all the minimal pairs, what >>> this entire discussion is about? [...] >> Not really. It began, as I recall, with my observation that >> some linguists argue that standard English does not have [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> minimal pairs, and there's been a lot of marginally related >> discussion. > Yes, and one of the points was that not everyone had the > either/ether pair - and Harlan pointed out that even > those who don't make the distinction. Now, if no one did > imagine that you mightn't, what would have been the > relevance of pointing out that you didn't have that > pair? Athel wrote: "either" and "ether" are not a minimal pair for many (most?) native speakers; [...] I was responding to his parenthetical '(most?)' when I wrote: They're not for me, but in the U.S. I'm in the minority. The information about my own speech was incidental to the main point. Brian Brian M. Scott wrote (04-01-2010 18:26): > On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 11:18:13 +0000, António Marques > <antonioprm@sapo.pt> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > The information about my own speech was incidental to the > main point. But it was sensible of Harlan to point out that even for you, they are a minimal pair (if only in hearing, rather than speaking). On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 18:35:48 +0000, António Marques <antonioprm@sapo.pt> wrote in <news:hhtcef$l9j$1@news.eternal-september.org> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > Brian M. Scott wrote (04-01-2010 18:26): [...] >> The information about my own speech was incidental to the >> main point. > But it was sensible of Harlan to point out that even for > you, they are a minimal pair (if only in hearing, rather > than speaking). It would have been more sensible had I not explicitly mentioned them early in the thread. Brian Brian M. Scott wrote (04-01-2010 18:48): > On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 18:35:48 +0000, António Marques <antonioprm@sapo.pt> > wrote in <news:hhtcef$l9j$1@news.eternal-september.org> in [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > It would have been more sensible had I not explicitly mentioned them > early in the thread. Got lost. > On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 00:00:55 -0500, Harlan Messinger > <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Not really. It began, as I recall, with my observation that > some linguists argue that standard English does not have Who are these "some linguists," and where do they so "argue"? > distinct phonemes /T/ and /D/, but their arguments (which, > though very unconvincing in my opinion, are nevertheless > quite sophisticated) haven't been presented or discussed. > There has been some discussion of why it's difficult to find > minimal pairs, and there's been a lot of marginally related > discussion. In article <89fa2ba2-308b-46cc-8d5a-5815730c9690@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, > > Not really. It began, as I recall, with my observation that > > some linguists argue that standard English does not have > > Who are these "some linguists," and where do they so "argue"? I'd like to know this, too. I know some *non-*linguists have argued this, but I'm not aware of any linguists who have (at least, not any linguists who truly know what contrastive distribution really means). Nathan SignatureNathan Sanders Linguistics Program Williams College http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/ On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 04:30:53 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in <news:89fa2ba2-308b-46cc-8d5a-5815730c9690@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english: [...] >> Not really. It began, as I recall, with my observation that >> some linguists argue that standard English does not have > Who are these "some linguists," and where do they so "argue"? See my post <1w0a7zmeyk4tj$.10pa930b1bwkx.dlg@40tude.net> of 28 December, responding to a comment by Ross in which he mentioned that he'd 'once carried on a long argument with one of those "some linguists"'. I wrote: The one that I had in mind was Robert Whiting, on the old IE list. He argued at considerable length but failed altogether to convince Larry Trask and Leo Connolly (not to mention me). I'm not about to dig through the two long discussions that I remember to see whether Bob had any significant supporters. Brian > On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 04:30:53 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > I'm not about to dig through the two long discussions that I > remember to see whether Bob had any significant supporters. Bob Whiting has been a friend of mine for some 35 years now (he was Gelb's student, in Assyriology, long before I got to Chicago) and is not an Anglist, Indo-Europeanist, or even linguist; he is an Assyriologist and Sumerologist (has been in Helsinki for a long time now, associated with Simo Parpola, brother of Asko the Indusist). So I ask again, what linguist(s) has/ve taken this position? > On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 04:30:53 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Brian I just checked the archives, and indeed it was he (RW) with whom I had the argument, in 2000, on the IE list. I don't recall anyone else supporting him. He had some very peculiar ideas about how languages work. Ross Clark Harlan Messinger wrote (04-01-2010 05:00): >> [sci.lang and AUE only] >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > mindlessly spouting trivia about words that have one of those sounds or > the other for no reason? Hey, you've just described how most discussions seem to work these days. >>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:05:09 -0800 (PST), DKleinecke >>> <dkleinecke@gmail.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > argument: "thy" and "sooth" are rare to the point of non-existence in > modern English (other than in religious use, in the case of "thy"); It's an interesting coincidence but I don't think it detracts from their use as examples, given that (a) their rareness is happenstance--would the argument really be different if English had kept "thee" and "thou"? and (b) despite their rareness, there is no murkiness about how we pronounce them when we do use them. We don't feel like we're contravening some normal speech pattern when we don't pronounce them like "thigh" and "soothe". We don't think about it at all. > "either" and "ether" are not a minimal pair for many (most?) native > speakers; although "teething" is certainly a common word in everyday use > I'm not sure that "teethe" is. You can say, for example, "children start > to teethe at about one-year old" (or whatever age it is: my youngest > child is 26, so It was a while ago), but you'd be much more likely to > hear "children start teething at about one-year old". I don't see that the possibility that the word's present progressive form might be more frequently used than its naked form is a basis for objection. > I don't for a > moment doubt that the distinction is phonemic, but it would be nice to > have just one minimal pair of everyday words that wasn't open to any > sort of objection. >>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:05:09 -0800 (PST), DKleinecke >>> <dkleinecke@gmail.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > have just one minimal pair of everyday words that wasn't open to any > sort of objection. Slightly off this particular topic: I've noticed an increasing use of "bath" as a verb. Obviously, this is not a minimal pair with "bathe" since the vowels are quite different, but it still indicates that the two sounds do function as at least part of our method of distinguishing different words. SignatureRob Bannister [only to AUE and sci.lang] On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 06:48:16 +0800, Robert Bannister <robban1@bigpond.com> wrote in <news:7pvf9jFr6hU1@mid.individual.net> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.philosophy: [...] > Slightly off this particular topic: I've noticed an > increasing use of "bath" as a verb. [...] I remember being struck by it in the late 70s when I first visited England; I've not heard it in the U.S. Brian > [only to AUE and sci.lang] > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Brian I get the impression that "bathe" mainly survives as a posh-ish word for seaside activities or for metaphorical uses. "Bath", on the other hand, refers specifically to a bathtub or whatever one 'baths' a child in. That does not mean that no-one in Britain or Australia ever says "I'm going to bathe the baby now", but "bath" is more likely. SignatureRob Bannister > On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:05:09 -0800 (PST), DKleinecke > <dkleinecke@gmail.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > people <either> ~ <ether>. They dispose of these on other > grounds. You're talking modern English now. Those examples wouldn't have worked in the days when eth and thorn were part of a writer's alphabet. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:05:09 -0800 (PST), DKleinecke >> <dkleinecke@gmail.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > You're talking modern English now. Those examples wouldn't have worked > in the days when eth and thorn were part of a writer's alphabet. The problem is that eth and thorn could be used interchangeably in Old English. SignatureJames >>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:05:09 -0800 (PST), DKleinecke >>> <dkleinecke@gmail.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > The problem is that eth and thorn could be used interchangeably in Old > English. Hmm. Yes, I see your point. If one had been used for the voiced sound and the other for unvoiced we might have had a clue about how people used to pronounce things. As it is, we're a bit in the dark. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. > >>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:05:09 -0800 (PST), DKleinecke > >>> <dkleine...@gmail.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > and the other for unvoiced we might have had a clue about how people > used to pronounce things. As it is, we're a bit in the dark. No we're not; intervocalically fricatives were voiced, elsewhere they were voiceless. Only when French loanwords with intervocalic voiceless segments came along did the distinction become phonemic. For how we know such things, see e.g. the relevant chapters in the first two volumes of the Cambridge History of the English Language. On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 00:30:40 +1100, Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp@retep> wrote in <news:aKednZ1JMbMcmafWnZ2dnUVZ7vli4p2d@westnet.com.au> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.philosophy: >> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:05:09 -0800 (PST), DKleinecke >> <dkleinecke@gmail.com> wrote in >> <news:e1f26d37-f0bf-4a6d-9aa3-9f3ee47a6f08@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> >> in >> sci.math,sci.physics,sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.philosophy: >>> On Dec 27, 10:53 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> >>> wrote: >> [...] >>>> ... I am more than ever at a loss to understand how any >>>> linguist can maintain with a straight face that dh/th >>>> are in "complementary distribution". >>> It offends them that there are no minial pairs. >> Tthere are, and they know it: <thigh> ~ <thy>, and for many >> people <either> ~ <ether>. They dispose of these on other >> grounds. > You're talking modern English now. Of course: the distinction wasn't phonemic in Old English. > Those examples wouldn't have worked in the days when eth > and thorn were part of a writer's alphabet. Yes, they would: <þ> and <ð> were interchangeable in OE. Brian >> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:05:09 -0800 (PST), DKleinecke >> <dkleinecke@gmail.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > You're talking modern English now. Those examples wouldn't have worked > in the days when eth and thorn were part of a writer's alphabet. I wonder about that, seeing spelling was not fixed back then. It's easy to see how one letter will predominate when it occurs at the beginning of a word, but when it comes in the middle, especially when it occurs between two vowels, we know that many of us freely switch between f/v, s/z, even t/d (call it a flapped t, if you like) - that is why there are two form "hoofs" and "hooves", but for some weird reason "rooves" is frowned upon. SignatureRob Bannister [sci.lang and AUE only] On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 07:10:18 +0800, Robert Bannister <robban1@bigpond.com> wrote in <news:7pvgisF2clU1@mid.individual.net> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.philosophy: [...] > I wonder about that, seeing spelling was not fixed back > then. It's easy to see how one letter will predominate [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > f/v, s/z, even t/d (call it a flapped t, if you like) - > that is why there are two form "hoofs" and "hooves", There is only one vowel in 'hooves', spelled <oo>; the <e> is purely orthographic. The plural <hooves> continues the OE nom. plur. <hōfas> /ho:vas/; the plural <hoofs> dates from Early Modern English and simply adds the plural morpheme to <hoof>, which regularly continues the OE nom. sing. <hōf> /ho:f/. > but for some weird reason "rooves" is frowned upon. It's still heard in some varieties, but it lost out in writing. Brian > [sci.lang and AUE only] > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > morpheme to <hoof>, which regularly continues the OE nom. > sing. <hÅf> /ho:f/. There are (at least) two pronunciations of "hoof" (book/boot vowels). "Hoofs" seems to be most popular with the bookish crowd. I apologise for suggesting that "hooves" was an intervocalic v; now I think about it, this is a fairly unusual switch. On the other hand, there are plenty of people who pronounce "houses" with s, rather than z in the middle. >> but for some weird reason "rooves" is frowned upon. > > It's still heard in some varieties, but it lost out in > writing. I'm one, but then I pronounce "us" as "uz". SignatureRob Bannister > On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 05:11:53 -0800 (PST), Andrew Usher > <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > > and consider not using them improper. Whatever you recently did to "fix" your encoding has resulted in blank spaces where you typed funny letters. >> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 05:11:53 -0800 (PST), Andrew Usher >> <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Whatever you recently did to "fix" your encoding has resulted in blank > spaces where you typed funny letters. No, it's posted with Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I don't think the problem was caused by his last mod farther down the list of formats. pjk On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:40:47 +1300, PaulJK <paul.kriha@paradise.net.nz> wrote in <news:hh9nbf$ejq$1@news.eternal-september.org> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.philosophy: [...] >>> True, though some linguists would argue that the [ ]~[ ] >>> distinction still isn't phonemic, since the distribution is >>> predictable (albeit the conditioning isn't phonological). [...] >> Whatever you recently did to "fix" your encoding has >> resulted in blank spaces where you typed funny letters. > No, it's posted with Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" I don't think the problem was caused > by his last mod farther down the list of formats. It's almost certainly a problem with Google Groups. If Peter would break down and get a decent news client, he'd not have the problem. Brian > On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:40:47 +1300, PaulJK > <paul.kr...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Peter would break down and get a decent news client, he'd > not have the problem. Yet somehow Google Groups managed to show the letters a few minutes later. None of the newsgroup-snobs has ever explained what's _wrong_ with google groups. Just as the internet snobs never used to explain what was wrong with AOL. (I think it was nice of them to be constantly sending free blank diskettes to people.) Peter T. Daniels wrote (28-12-2009 12:29): >> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:40:47 +1300, PaulJK >> <paul.kr...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > None of the newsgroup-snobs has ever explained what's _wrong_ with > google groups. I don't see that there is much wrong with GG from the POV of who doesn't use GG (whereas Outlook has a number of bugs, after all these years, that can disrupt other people's experience of the 'news'). The problem with GG is that it's a pain to use, though I don't know of any web interface that isn't, and the occasional weird behaviour - the inconsistency you mention above being a good example. > Peter T. Daniels wrote (28-12-2009 12:29): > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > isn't, and the occasional weird behaviour - the inconsistency you mention > above being a good example.- How is it a pain to use? I go to the url for "My Groups," it shows me the list of the 5 groups I visit and whether there are any new messages since last time; I click on a group name and it gives me a list of the last 30 threads most recently posted to, with the number of new messages since last time; I click on a thread and it opens the message-tree on the left and the earliest unread message on the right. What could be a pain about that? How could some other interface do it any more simply? Peter T. Daniels wrote (28-12-2009 19:00): >> Peter T. Daniels wrote (28-12-2009 12:29): >> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > What could be a pain about that? How could some other interface do it > any more simply? Well, compare mine. I open 'Mail & Newsgroups', it shows me there are 219 unread messages on sci.lang. I click on sci.lang, it opens the message-tree, showing only unread messages. I see a lot of them are in 'Magdalenian experiment (continuation)'. I press K and suddenly 'Magdalenian experiment (continuation)' disappears for good, lowering the number of unread messages to 170 (it will never appear again unless I want to). Then, I see most of the messages are old and in threads that aren't likely to be interesting. I select them all using ctrl and shift, press R, and they're all marked as read. That leaves some 30-odd messages I can read sequentially by pressing space to advance one page at a time. All this happens instantly. And I can reply simultaneously to all the messages I want, save replies if they're not finished yet, reread how many messages I wish, and so on, not having to worry about anything 'going away'. And in recent times I've gone as far as creating some filters to automatically delete messages from certain uninteresting folks so I don't lose any time looking at them (I've resisted doing that for a long time, but alas it had to be). > Peter T. Daniels wrote (28-12-2009 19:00): > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > Well, compare mine. I open 'Mail & Newsgroups', it shows me there are 219 > unread messages on sci.lang. I click on sci.lang, it opens the message-tree, same > showing only unread messages. I see a lot of them are in 'Magdalenian different -- gg shows who/what the new messages are responding to > experiment (continuation)'. I press K and suddenly 'Magdalenian experiment > (continuation)' disappears for good, lowering the number of unread messages > to 170 (it will never appear again unless I want to). Then, I see most of if I never click on the Magdalenian thread, I never see more about it tnan how many unread messages there are since the last time I visited groups (not how many messages I've never read -- that would be in the hundreds). I look at the thread if Panu has posted something. > the messages are old and in threads that aren't likely to be interesting. I > select them all using ctrl and shift, press R, and they're all marked as > read. That leaves some 30-odd messages I can read sequentially by pressing > space to advance one page at a time. All this happens instantly. And I can different -- I scroll through messages 10 at a time. The unread messages are shown in full, the old ones just as headers until I click on one (or on "Expand All," which shows all 10.) > reply simultaneously to all the messages I want, save replies if they're not > finished yet, reread how many messages I wish, and so on, not having to > worry about anything 'going away'. And in recent times I've gone as far as > creating some filters to automatically delete messages from certain > uninteresting folks so I don't lose any time looking at them (I've resisted > doing that for a long time, but alas it had to be).- No killfiling here. Regarding the minor differences identified, it seems to me GG handles them better. > > Peter T. Daniels wrote (28-12-2009 19:00): > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > same Not the same - GG isn't instantaneous. > > showing only unread messages. I see a lot of them are in 'Magdalenian > > different -- gg shows who/what the new messages are responding to Oh, mine can too. I just don't care for that. > > experiment (continuation)'. I press K and suddenly 'Magdalenian experiment > > (continuation)' disappears for good, lowering the number of unread messages [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > groups (not how many messages I've never read -- that would be in the > hundreds). I look at the thread if Panu has posted something. I'll admit it, I only don't kill some threads because there's a chance someone known may post something to it some time. I like to look at the screen and only see what I choose to. > > the messages are old and in threads that aren't likely to be interesting. I > > select them all using ctrl and shift, press R, and they're all marked as [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > messages are shown in full, the old ones just as headers until I click > on one (or on "Expand All," which shows all 10.) Yeah, it's not unreasonable. > > reply simultaneously to all the messages I want, save replies if they're not > > finished yet, reread how many messages I wish, and so on, not having to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Regarding the minor differences identified, it seems to me GG handles > them better. You *do* seem to like it, at least. You did use a real newsreader for years before and you've had the chance to revert to it. > > > Peter T. Daniels wrote (28-12-2009 19:00): > > > > On Dec 28, 10:31 am, António Marques<antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > Not the same - GG isn't instantaneous. It's as close to instantaneous as can be detected by the human user! > > > showing only unread messages. I see a lot of them are in 'Magdalenian > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > I like to look at the screen and only see what I choose to. That, in a nutshell, is the hugest problem of The Computer and the internets in general. It's almost impossible to come upon something serendipitously -- as by leafing through a newspaper or magazine, or wandering through the stacks of the library or bookstore. I cannot understand how scholarship can be carried out in Europe, where the closed-stack library is ubiquitous. > > > the messages are old and in threads that aren't likely to be interesting. I > > > select them all using ctrl and shift, press R, and they're all marked as [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > You *do* seem to like it, at least. You did use a real newsreader for > years before and you've had the chance to revert to it.- Netscape came with my Mac 15 years ago -- on dial-up. I don't think I have a chance to revert to it. > > Peter T. Daniels wrote (28-12-2009 12:29): > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > What could be a pain about that? How could some other interface do it > any more simply? I don't use the URL. Up in the upper left corner there is a list of possible destinations ending in "more". Click on that to get more choices one of which is "Groups" and click again. There are probably lots of other ways to get to "My Groups". > > > Peter T. Daniels wrote (28-12-2009 12:29): > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > choices one of which is "Groups" and click again. There are probably > lots of other ways to get to "My Groups".- That's if you're starting from a google screen (which I'm not). I do usually use that to get to google books, though. The way Verizon Yahoo IE works, when I open a new tab there's a dropdown with the last dozen or so websites I've visited, so I just scroll down to groups.google.com, and it opens to the My Groups page. > Peter T. Daniels wrote (28-12-2009 12:29): >>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:40:47 +1300, PaulJK [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > interface that isn't, and the occasional weird behaviour - the > inconsistency you mention above being a good example. I've been using Seamonkey which is web-based. It has about a dozen annoying bugs. Google's implementation is horrible. /BAH jmfbahciv wrote (29-12-2009 13:39): >> Peter T. Daniels wrote (28-12-2009 12:29): >>>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:40:47 +1300, PaulJK [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > I've been using Seamonkey which is web-based. Uh? > jmfbahciv wrote (29-12-2009 13:39): >>> Peter T. Daniels wrote (28-12-2009 12:29): [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Uh? You wrote that you don't know of any other web interface newsgroup software.... I thought i would point you to one that isn't as painful as Google's. /BAH jmfbahciv wrote (31-12-2009 14:46): >> jmfbahciv wrote (29-12-2009 13:39): >>>> Peter T. Daniels wrote (28-12-2009 12:29): [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > software.... I thought i would point you to one that isn't > as painful as Google's. But how is Seamonkey a web interface? It's a native program like, say, Firefox (in fact it's FF + Thunderbird, properly done). Whereas a web interface is something that runs inside a browser. jmfbahciv (in sci.lang): >> jmfbahciv wrote (29-12-2009 13:39): ... >>> I've been using Seamonkey which is web-based. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > software.... I thought i would point you to one that isn't > as painful as Google's. But the fact that Seamonkey has a web-browser functionality doesn't make it's news-reader functionality web-based, does it? Joachim >> It's almost certainly a problem with Google Groups. If >> Peter would break down and get a decent news client, he'd [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > None of the newsgroup-snobs has ever explained what's _wrong_ with > google groups. Not true. You just don't like the explanations. http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=120829004500 http://improve-usenet.org/ > Just as the internet snobs never used to explain what was wrong with > AOL. That's good, coming from someone who regularly impugns the qualifications and right to post of people he disagrees with. > (I think it was nice of them to be constantly sending free blank > diskettes to people.) As if we didn't produce too much landfill already? SignatureI worry that 10 or 15 years from now, [my daughter] will come to me and say 'Daddy, where were you when they took freedom of the press away from the Internet?' [Mike Godwin, EFF http://www.eff.org/ ] > > None of the newsgroup-snobs has ever explained what's _wrong_ with > > google groups. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://improve-usenet.org/ The first of those is far from building coherent/valid arguments and the second is simply abuse (except for its link to the first). > >> It's almost certainly a problem with Google Groups. If > >> Peter would break down and get a decent news client, he'd [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Not true. You just don't like the explanations. I've never _seen_ any explanations. Antonio just gave some, and it turns out our two systems are all but equivalent. > http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=120829004500 > > http://improve-usenet.org/ Those don't look like postings to the newsgroups by people including you who like to impugn google groups. > > Just as the internet snobs never used to explain what was wrong with > > AOL. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > As if we didn't produce too much landfill already? Should I have _not used_ the diskettes they sent me, but instead gone out and bought a box of new ones? >> >> It's almost certainly a problem with Google Groups. If >> >> Peter would break down and get a decent news client, he'd [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Should I have _not used_ the diskettes they sent me, but instead gone > out and bought a box of new ones? Then they switched to non-reusable CDs. SignatureI heard that Hans Christian Andersen lifted the title for "The Little Mermaid" off a Red Lobster Menu. [Bucky Katt] >>> It's almost certainly a problem with Google Groups. If >>> Peter would break down and get a decent news client, he'd [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > http://improve-usenet.org/ I found a better copy of the site (the original one, whose owner died suddenly in February 2009, seems to be missing a lot of material). http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/underlying.html SignatureA: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Maybe because some people are too annoyed by top-posting. Q: Why do I not get an answer to my question(s)? Adam Funk wrote (11-01-2010 21:10): >>>> It's almost certainly a problem with Google Groups. If >>>> Peter would break down and get a decent news client, he'd [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/underlying.html This one is as puny as the other. It's ridiculous that people wishing to belittle those using google groups should make such a poor job of it. > Just as the internet snobs never used to explain what was wrong with > AOL. (I think it was nice of them to be constantly sending free blank > diskettes to people.) Me too. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. [sci.math, sci.physics, and alt.philosophy dropped] On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 04:29:16 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in <news:1bc588f6-b254-4874-844a-dc0994f30966@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.philosophy: [...] > None of the newsgroup-snobs has ever explained what's > _wrong_ with google groups. I don't know whether anyone has explained it to you specifically, but it's not hard to find explanations. I'm not about to waste my time offering them, however: having already made up your mind, you will undoubtedly counter what you can and ignore the rest. For all I know, GG may even work adequately for you; I find it an annoying, awkward pain in the arse even over a highspeed connection. Every news client that I've ever used is preferable. [...] Brian > [sci.math, sci.physics, and alt.philosophy dropped] > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > in the arse even over a highspeed connection. Every news > client that I've ever used is preferable. See? You refuse to say what you're talking about. >> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:40:47 +1300, PaulJK >> <paul.kr...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > None of the newsgroup-snobs has ever explained what's _wrong_ with > google groups. Do you realize you sound like Franz Gneadiger? Most of the users of Usenet client utilities have tried Google and worked out their own reasons for not using it. The reasons are many and varied. Some of them have also been discussed in this group over the past several years. There are specific Usenet groups for people wanting to talk pros and cons of various client utilities. You yourself have problems with google groups. Yet, like Franz, you stick to your belief that somebody else is causing them. > Just as the internet snobs never used to explain what was wrong with > AOL. (I think it was nice of them to be constantly sending free blank > diskettes to people.) Internet snobs usually discuss and explain technical aspects of usenet and internet in user groups dedicated to such discussions. There are zillions of them dedicated to many relevant subjects. pjk >>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:40:47 +1300, PaulJK >>> <paul.kr...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > You yourself have problems with google groups. Yet, like Franz, > you stick to your belief that somebody else is causing them. Well, from his description of the behaviour, which wasn't adequately detailed, it sounded like he has different ISO character set assignments for each thread level. I would guess that he has no default set but uses the character set described in the header. If it is absent, the default is the generic standard (don't recall the precise spec of the name). but that's just a guess, albeit and educated guess. > >> Just as the internet snobs never used to explain what was wrong with [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > There are zillions of them dedicated to many relevant subjects. > pjk <grin> I fixed some of those assumptions about AOL users. /BAH >>>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:40:47 +1300, PaulJK >>>> <paul.kr...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > but that's just a guess, albeit and educated guess. Not being able to see how precisely is his machine and Google i/f set up (and he aparently not being able to describe it), there is nohing more that one can do, but guess. Your guess seems to me to be a good one. It would explain how sometimes he sees chars with diacritics and sometimes just spaces giving him the impression that it's something the posters do, not his google i/face. >>> Just as the internet snobs never used to explain what was wrong with >>> AOL. (I think it was nice of them to be constantly sending free blank [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > /BAH > >>>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:40:47 +1300, PaulJK > >>>> <paul.kr...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > Google i/f set up (and he aparently not being able to > describe it), there is nohing more that one can do, but guess. Are you talking about me? No one ever asked me to describe my setup. AFAIK I have never set my charset to anything; it just takes whatever is sent. > Your guess seems to me to be a good one. It would > explain how sometimes he sees chars with diacritics and > sometimes just spaces giving him the impression that it's > something the posters do, not his google i/face. The missing-character thing NEVER happened before I mentioned it a day or two ago. Either I see the proper accented letters, or I see gibberish. Never before have I seen a blank instead of a funny letter. And I usually have no problem with the cyrillic, devanagari, Hebrew, Arabic, or Chinese characters that are sometimes posted here. >> Your guess seems to me to be a good one. It would >> explain how sometimes he sees chars with diacritics and >> sometimes just spaces giving him the impression that it's >> something the posters do, not his google i/face. > The missing-character thing NEVER happened before I mentioned it a day > or two ago. Do you remember the message(-ID)? If so we could analyze the error. Helmut Wollmersdorfer >>> Your guess seems to me to be a good one. It would explain how >>> sometimes he sees chars with diacritics and sometimes just spaces [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Do you remember the message(-ID)? If so we could analyze the error. You can take a message of mine as an example: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.english.usage/msg/1b052723d2e17c01 I typed the name António with an accent on the first "o", posting in ISO-8859-1. It shows up as "Ant nio" in the ordinary GG format, but if you view the original of the message you see "Ant�nio". In the original of Peter's reply that has become "Ant nio". SignatureJames >>>> Your guess seems to me to be a good one. It would explain how >>>> sometimes he sees chars with diacritics and sometimes just spaces [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I typed the name António with an accent on the first "o", posting in > ISO-8859-1. Looks nice in my reader. > It shows up as "Ant nio" in the ordinary GG format, An error of GG. > but if you view the > original of the message you see "Ant�nio". I cannot reproduce this error. Looks like "double or triple encoding". This error is in _your_ configuration. > In the original of Peter's reply that has become "Ant nio". Helmut Wollmersdorfer >>>> On Dec 29, 9:27 pm, "PaulJK" <paul.kr...@paradise.net.nz> >>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > I cannot reproduce this error. Looks like "double or triple > encoding". This error is in _your_ configuration. Maybe, but it looks all right in my newsreader, and in my messages as quoted by you and other people who don't use GG. SignatureJames > >>>> On Dec 29, 9:27 pm, "PaulJK" <paul.kr...@paradise.net.nz> > >>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Maybe, but it looks all right in my newsreader, and in my messages as > quoted by you and other people who don't use GG. And it looks fine in the line above with three chevrons (James). Normally when an accented letter doesn't come through it doesn't appear as a sequence of three characters as James typed (i, Spanish- question, one-half), but either as a single question mark or as some other character from the second 128-character range (perhaps a la Mac vs. PC presentations of the few characters that were coded differently in the respective varieties of PostScript fonts). Helmut Wollmersdorfer wrote (30-12-2009 10:29): >>> Your guess seems to me to be a good one. It would >>> explain how sometimes he sees chars with diacritics and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Do you remember the message(-ID)? If so we could analyze the error. From the description, it's some sort of glitch within GG. Nothing worth being analyzed (probably not even amenable to analysis). On Dec 30, 5:29 am, Helmut Wollmersdorfer <hel...@wollmersdorfer.at> wrote: > >> Your guess seems to me to be a good one. It would > >> explain how sometimes he sees chars with diacritics and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Do you remember the message(-ID)? If so we could analyze the error. Surely you don't mean "remember"! Once in a while, people post "message IDs" here, but if there's a way to display the header _of a newsgroup message_, I don't know what it is. If one wanted to bother, one could search words like "space" within this thread. Peter T. Daniels (in sci.lang): > On Dec 30, 5:29 am, Helmut Wollmersdorfer <hel...@wollmersdorfer.at> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > to display the header _of a newsgroup message_, I don't know what it > is. In German, GG offers "weitere Optionen", and then "Original anzeigen"; If you press these, you get the message in raw format. The top lines there are the header, including the message ID. Joachim [...] > Once in a while, people post "message IDs" here, but if > there's a way to display the header _of a newsgroup > message_, I don't know what it is. In the upper right, next to the date and time, you'll find a link 'More options'. Clicking on it will show you the Newsgroups, From, Date, and Subject headers and the local time corresponding to the Date header, under which you'll eight new links: 'Reply', 'Reply to author', 'Forward', 'Print', 'Individual message', 'Show original', Report this message', and 'Find messages by this author'. Click on 'Show original'; the original plain ASCII message, complete with all headers[*], will appear in a new tab. [*] Except that the e-mail address in the From header is mangled. Brian >>> Your guess seems to me to be a good one. It would >>> explain how sometimes he sees chars with diacritics and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Do you remember the message(-ID)? If so we could analyze the error. You're talking to a real google-grouper who once said "I don't even know what a MID is." SignatureCivilization is a race between catastrophe and education. [H G Wells] >>>> Your guess seems to me to be a good one. It would >>>> explain how sometimes he sees chars with diacritics and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You're talking to a real google-grouper who once said "I don't even > know what a MID is." Do you want to know? /BAH >>> Do you remember the message(-ID)? If so we could analyze the error. >> >> You're talking to a real google-grouper who once said "I don't even >> know what a MID is." >> > Do you want to know? I know. You try explaining to PTD how the USENET works. SignatureTwo of the most famous products of Berkeley are LSD and Unix. I don't think that this is a coincidence. [anonymous] >>>> Do you remember the message(-ID)? If so we could analyze the error. >>> You're talking to a real google-grouper who once said "I don't even [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I know. You try explaining to PTD how the USENET works. <grin> I'd have to think a long time for that one. I'd probably use junk snail-mail lists as an analogy. /BAH >>>>>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:40:47 +1300, PaulJK >>>>>> <paul.kr...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Are you talking about me? Yes. We were trying to help you. > No one ever asked me to describe my setup. I figured you wouldn't know.... > AFAIK I have never set my charset to anything; it just takes whatever > is sent. And I was right that you don't know. >> Your guess seems to me to be a good one. It would >> explain how sometimes he sees chars with diacritics and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > And I usually have no problem with the cyrillic, devanagari, Hebrew, > Arabic, or Chinese characters that are sometimes posted here. If the behaviour really never happened before now, then something changed on your system. Note that this can happen with a typo on these ^(*&()*&^%$%-ing modern machines. /BAH > On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:40:47 +1300, PaulJK > <paul.kriha@paradise.net.nz> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Peter would break down and get a decent news client, he'd > not have the problem. These days he could choose from a number of free good news clients. But, he can't possibly join the falange of "Usenet reader snobs". :-) pjk > > On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:40:47 +1300, PaulJK > > <paul.kr...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > news clients. But, he can't possibly join the falange of > "Usenet reader snobs". :-) Actually it seems like those of you who are always messing with your encodings and your headers are the ones having the problems! > On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 05:11:53 -0800 (PST), Andrew Usher > <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > > and consider not using them improper. ????? I just switched from "View messages by thread" to "View messages by date" and now I can see your funny letters!! > On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 05:11:53 -0800 (PST), Andrew Usher > <k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com> wrote in > <news:55772067-ca57-4c5f-a8ac-304c203adaaf@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> > in > sci.math,sci.physics,sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.philosophy: >> It is also true - as Marvin said - that many English >> speakers do pronounce foreign words with foreign phonemes >> ex. the umlautted vowels in 'Goethe' and 'Fuehrer' >> (though Brits already have the first), > > Now there I disagree: they don't have [ø:]. The BrE "er" vowel, as in "first", is so close to the German "oe" that few people would notice the difference. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 11:44:10 +1100, Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp@retep> wrote in <news:IMidnWjqUejBYqrWnZ2dnUVZ8sCdnZ2d@westnet.com.au> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.philosophy: >> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 05:11:53 -0800 (PST), Andrew Usher >> <k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com> wrote in >> <news:55772067-ca57-4c5f-a8ac-304c203adaaf@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> >> in >> sci.math,sci.physics,sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.philosophy: >>> It is also true - as Marvin said - that many English >>> speakers do pronounce foreign words with foreign phonemes >>> ex. the umlautted vowels in 'Goethe' and 'Fuehrer' >>> (though Brits already have the first), >> Now there I disagree: they don't have [ø:]. > The BrE "er" vowel, as in "first", is so close to the > German "oe" that few people would notice the difference. It's easily the closest approximation in the BrE vowel system, and closer than anything in any rhotic variety of AmE that I've heard, but it's quite clearly not [ø:] (or [œ], for that matter). Brian > On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 11:44:10 +1100, Peter Moylan > <gro.nalyomp@retep> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > AmE that I've heard, but it's quite clearly not [ø:] (or > [œ], for that matter). In AmE, "Goethe" is homophonous with "Gerta." Rhotic and all. (And "Fuehrer" starts like "few," but doesn't have the w-offglide before the r.) > > On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 11:44:10 +1100, Peter Moylan > > <gro.nalyomp@retep> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > In AmE, "Goethe" is homophonous with "Gerta." Rhotic and all. AmE here, currently in northern VA, originally from Maine. Just in my experience, it's about 50/50 whether it's pronounced in a horribly mangled semi-phonetic manner or whether it's vaguely like "Gerta" but with a more elongated German-style oe first syllable and at most a partially vocalized "r"--I wouldn't call "Goethe" and "Gerta" homophones. The horribly mangled version is basically "Geth", which rhymes with "death". >>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 11:44:10 +1100, Peter Moylan >>> <gro.nalyomp@retep> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > "Gerta" homophones. The horribly mangled version is basically "Geth", > which rhymes with "death". A non-rhotic limerick: A young German poet named Goethe Once wrote of the sorrows of Werther, Who loved Fräulein Lotte Though Albert had got her. He shot himself rather than hurt her. SignatureJames On Dec 27, 11:18 pm, "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" <sjdevn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 11:44:10 +1100, Peter Moylan > > > <gro.nalyomp@retep> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > "Gerta" homophones. The horribly mangled version is basically "Geth", > which rhymes with "death".- Never heard that one. The street in Chicago (next to Schiller) is go- thee (voiceless th). > On Dec 27, 11:18 pm, "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" <sjdevn...@yahoo.com> > wrote: >> Just in my experience, it's about 50/50 whether it's pronounced in a >> horribly mangled semi-phonetic manner or whether it's vaguely like [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Never heard that one. The street in Chicago (next to Schiller) is go- > thee (voiceless th). AIUI, "Drakestraße" in Berlin is commonly pronounced /'drak@"Stras@/ although it should be /'dre(j)k"Stras@/ after Sir Francis Drake (I don't recall why a street in Berlin is named after him, but I used to know someone who lived nearby and told me this). Signature...the reason why so many professional artists drink a lot is not necessarily very much to do with the artistic temperament, etc. It is simply that they can afford to, because they can normally take a large part of a day off to deal with the ravages. [Amis _On Drink_] Sun, 27 Dec 2009 19:10:37 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >In AmE, "Goethe" is homophonous with "Gerta." Rhotic and all. > >(And "Fuehrer" starts like "few," but doesn't have the w-offglide >before the r.) <few> doesn't have a w-offglide either. It's [fju:]. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 09:59:38 +0100, Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.eu> wrote in <news:sqsgj5tono7pnqf5smil8imsng1embdqjq@4ax.com> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.philosophy: > Sun, 27 Dec 2009 19:10:37 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" > <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >> In AmE, "Goethe" is homophonous with "Gerta." Rhotic and >> all. >> (And "Fuehrer" starts like "few," but doesn't have the >> w-offglide before the r.) > <few> doesn't have a w-offglide either. It's [fju:]. For many speakers that's true only in broad transcription. Brian > Sun, 27 Dec 2009 19:10:37 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > <few> doesn't have a w-offglide either. It's [fju:]. Nonsense. Have you ever actually heard AmE? (And don't tell me you have a library of songs to consult.) Mon, 28 Dec 2009 04:31:31 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >Have you ever actually heard AmE? (And don't tell me you have a >library of songs to consult.) Believe it or not, we have CNN here on cable television. I watched it even yesterday for the story (well, the repeats, over and over, that nothing more was known than what we already knew, which was very little), about the repeated problem there was on the route Amsterdam-Detroit. As we speak (no: as I type), there are several fragments in American English on Dutch radio, I think it's George Bush, yes it is, says the accouncer, it's about 9/11 and Afghanistan. Enduring freedom. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Mon, 28 Dec 2009 04:31:31 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > English on Dutch radio, I think it's George Bush, yes it is, says the > accouncer, it's about 9/11 and Afghanistan. Enduring freedom. Yet somehow you could claim that in AmE there are "long (non-a) vowels" of the form [V:]? Mon, 28 Dec 2009 07:17:19 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >> Mon, 28 Dec 2009 04:31:31 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" >> <gramma...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Yet somehow you could claim that in AmE there are "long (non-a) >vowels" of the form [V:]? Did I? Where? SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Mon, 28 Dec 2009 07:17:19 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Did I? Where? When you claimed that "few" is pronounced [fju:] Mon, 28 Dec 2009 11:02:00 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >> >Yet somehow you could claim that in AmE there are "long (non-a) >> >vowels" of the form [V:]? >> >> Did I? Where? > >When you claimed that "few" is pronounced [fju:] (My stupid misunderstanding, I interpreted V literally, not as a placeholder for vowel. Cleared up now.) OK, so it's short. [fju], very short. Sounds like a Spanish accent, but everybody happy, I don't mind. Question: do the vowels in <fool> and <full> have the same length? SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Mon, 28 Dec 2009 11:02:00 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > OK, so it's short. [fju], very short. Sounds like a Spanish accent, > but everybody happy, I don't mind. No, it is not short, very short. There are no "short" unreduced final vowels in English. Maybe it's [fju:] in BrE, but in AmE it's [fjuw]. > Question: do the vowels in <fool> and <full> have the same length? I think so, but that's so subphonemic that it's pretty much determinable only instrumentally. Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:53:57 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >No, it is not short, very short. There are no "short" unreduced final >vowels in English. Make that American English. >Maybe it's [fju:] in BrE, but in AmE it's [fjuw]. Both are phonetically identical. [fjuw] is nonsense, /fyuw/ can make sense given Trager-Smith's consistent model of the language. >> Question: do the vowels in <fool> and <full> have the same length? > >I think so, but that's so subphonemic that it's pretty much >determinable only instrumentally. So the difference is purely in vowel timbre? (wrong term, please insert previous correction). http://m-w.com/dictionary/full http://m-w.com/dictionary/fool I clearly hear a length difference there, and very little vowel quality difference, if any. I can't imagine BrE is any different in this respect, these are just those words that are shared among all kinds of English. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:53:57 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: > >Maybe it's [fju:] in BrE, but in AmE it's [fjuw]. > > Both are phonetically identical. [fjuw] is nonsense, /fyuw/ can make > sense given Trager-Smith's consistent model of the language. Are you saying that [uw] (and [ij], presumably?) are nonsense? I'd transcribe brazilian _azul_ as [a'zuw], not [a'zu:]. > > Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:53:57 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" > > <gramma...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Are you saying that [uw] (and [ij], presumably?) are nonsense? I'd > transcribe brazilian _azul_ as [a'zuw], not [a'zu:]. Every so often he admits that he's never had any training in phonetics, and sometimes it shows. Here we seem to be seeing an echo of his misunderstanding of / / and [ ]. It also now seems that he really never has properly heard American English. Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:23:22 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >> Are you saying that [uw] (and [ij], presumably?) are nonsense? I'd >> transcribe brazilian _azul_ as [a'zuw], not [a'zu:]. > >Every so often he admits that he's never had any training in >phonetics, and sometimes it shows. Just tell me what [w] means. Higher than [u]? Or less vowel-like? Both? Always? >Here we seem to be seeing an echo of his misunderstanding of / / and >[ ]. So such misunderanderstanding exists, except in your mind. >It also now seems that he really never has properly heard American >English. Yeah, right. And please define properly. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:23:22 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Just tell me what [w] means. Higher than [u]? Or less vowel-like? > Both? Always? Do you really own _no_ phonetics textbooks? To go no further than Mike Macmahon's mini-glossary in WWS, [w] is an approximant, where "The gap between the articulators is greater than for a fricative, and the sound does not cause turbulence (friction)." Macmahon is (past?) Secretary of the International Phonetic Association. > >Here we seem to be seeing an echo of his misunderstanding of / / and > >[ ]. > > So such misunderanderstanding exists, except in your mind. Yet it keeps being manifested in your postings. > >It also now seems that he really never has properly heard American > >English. > > Yeah, right. And please define properly. With due attention to its differences from the form of English you're most familiar with. Perhaps with attempts to imitate its idiosyncrasies. Tue, 29 Dec 2009 06:59:32 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >> >Here we seem to be seeing an echo of his misunderstanding of / / and >> >[ ]. >> >> So such misunderanderstanding exists, except in your mind. > >Yet it keeps being manifested in your postings. No it doesn't, you never showed any concrete examples of that. (Except for maybe one or two mistakes which I readily admitted). >> Yeah, right. And please define properly. > >With due attention to its differences from the form of English you're >most familiar with. Perhaps with attempts to imitate its >idiosyncrasies. I am familiar with both British and American English since age 10, being 54 now. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com Mon, 28 Dec 2009 14:52:58 -0800 (PST): António Marques <entonio@gmail.com>: in sci.lang: >> Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:53:57 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" >> <gramma...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Are you saying that [uw] (and [ij], presumably?) are nonsense? OK, not nonsense, but difficult. What does it mean phonetically, if [w] means [u as a semivowel]? >I'd transcribe brazilian _azul_ as [a'zuw], not [a'zu:]. Good point. Perhaps my problem stems partly from Dutch <jou> and <jouw> are homophones. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Mon, 28 Dec 2009 14:52:58 -0800 (PST): António Marques > <ento...@gmail.com>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > OK, not nonsense, but difficult. What does it mean phonetically, if > [w] means [u as a semivowel]? I believe "semivowel" is a term from phonology, not from phonetics (and hence inappropriate in [ ]); at any rate it plays its part in distinctive feature theory. Who says "[w] means 'u as a semivowel'"? > >I'd transcribe brazilian _azul_ as [a'zuw], not [a'zu:]. > > Good point. > > Perhaps my problem stems partly from Dutch <jou> and <jouw> are > homophones. Good grief, why are you still stuck in orthography? Tue, 29 Dec 2009 07:02:13 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >> Mon, 28 Dec 2009 14:52:58 -0800 (PST): António Marques >> <ento...@gmail.com>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >(and hence inappropriate in [ ]); at any rate it plays its part in >distinctive feature theory. OK. >Who says "[w] means 'u as a semivowel'"? Not me, I don't really know what [w] and [j] are supposed to mean, that's why I ask. >> >I'd transcribe brazilian _azul_ as [a'zuw], not [a'zu:]. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Good grief, why are you still stuck in orthography? No, I'm not. Dutch final <w> is sometimes /w/ with allophone [w], e.g. in <uw> /yw/ (as opposed to <u>) and <nieuw> /niw/. But in <jouw>, the <w> has no effect, because <au> and <ou> are diphthongs that already end in [u] or [w], regardless of whether a <w> follows. So the question is: is [Ow] different from [Ou] and if so, how? And should I write [niw] or [nju] or [niu] and would it make any difference? SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Tue, 29 Dec 2009 07:02:13 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: > >> Mon, 28 Dec 2009 14:52:58 -0800 (PST): António Marques > >> <ento...@gmail.com>: in sci.lang: > >> >> Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:53:57 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" > >> >> <gramma...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: > >> >> >Maybe it's [fju:] in BrE, but in AmE it's [fjuw]. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Not me, I don't really know what [w] and [j] are supposed to mean, > that's why I ask. You didn't "ask." You postulated. > >> >I'd transcribe brazilian _azul_ as [a'zuw], not [a'zu:]. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > question is: is [Ow] different from [Ou] and if so, how? And should I > write [niw] or [nju] or [niu] and would it make any difference? How does the above paragraph not reflect a concern with the spelling (= orthography)? If two utterances have [Ow] and [Ou] respectively, then if they are distinct items, then you must write them differently, because the difference is phonemic. If the two utterances are tokens of the same type, then you must phonemicize them identically. The choice of symbols used in the phonemicization depends on the entire phonological system: you use whichever ones produce the clearest, most elegant description. Tue, 29 Dec 2009 12:38:49 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >> Tue, 29 Dec 2009 07:02:13 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" >> <gramma...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > >You didn't "ask." You postulated. Did I? Easy escape for you, you don't have to answer legit questions. As before. >> >> >I'd transcribe brazilian _azul_ as [a'zuw], not [a'zu:]. >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >distinct items, then you must write them differently, because the >difference is phonemic. It so happens it isn't, which was my point. What now? Is there ANY language in the world in which such a difference IS phonemic (excluding two-syllable situations)? >If the two utterances are tokens of the same type, then you must >phonemicize them identically. That's not an answer to my questions. Of course everybody phonemicizes <jou> and <jouw> identically: they sound the same. The question was: how? >The choice of symbols used in the phonemicization depends on the >entire phonological system: you use whichever ones produce the >clearest, most elegant description. And that can be different for different dialects of the same language, even for words that sound the same in both. Right? SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com Mon, 28 Dec 2009 07:17:19 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >Yet somehow you could claim that in AmE there are "long (non-a) >vowels" of the form [V:]? O wait, you mean [V:::::~] (a nasalised, very long low shwa)? The "pause for thought" interjection? Yes, that exist uhhhmmmm, in the speech of uhhmmmm, many Americans. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com Mon, 28 Dec 2009 04:31:31 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >> Sun, 27 Dec 2009 19:10:37 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" >> <gramma...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Have you ever actually heard AmE? (And don't tell me you have a >library of songs to consult.) BTW, offglides are a phonological concept, isn't it, by Trager-Smith? So actually hearing such an offglide is impossible. Offglides exist between / /, not between [ ]. If, as you say, few has a w-offglide and Fuehrer (in American English) has not, does mean that <u> in <purer>, <fury>, <enduring freedom> etc. correspond to a different phoneme than <ew> in <few>? What is the Trager-Smith transcription of those words? And of <new> and <brew>? SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Mon, 28 Dec 2009 04:31:31 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > So actually hearing such an offglide is impossible. Offglides exist > between / /, not between [ ]. An offglide is a glide after a vowel. How is that not a phonetic concept? > If, as you say, few has a w-offglide and Fuehrer (in American English) > has not, does mean that <u> in <purer>, <fury>, <enduring freedom> > etc. correspond to a different phoneme than <ew> in <few>? > > What is the Trager-Smith transcription of those words? And of <new> > and <brew>? I would assume they are /'pyur@r 'fyuriy en'd(y)uriN 'friyd@m fyuw n(y) uw bruw/. Mon, 28 Dec 2009 07:20:29 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >> Mon, 28 Dec 2009 04:31:31 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" >> <gramma...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >An offglide is a glide after a vowel. How is that not a phonetic >concept? I don't know. Ask Trager-Smith or those who find their model useful. >> If, as you say, few has a w-offglide and Fuehrer (in American English) >> has not, does mean that <u> in <purer>, <fury>, <enduring freedom> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >I would assume they are /'pyur@r 'fyuriy en'd(y)uriN 'friyd@m fyuw n(y) >uw bruw/. So the offglide phoneme disappears before a consonant? Or also before /r/? Does it also happen if the consonant is in the following word? SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Mon, 28 Dec 2009 07:20:29 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > So the offglide phoneme disappears before a consonant? Or also before > /r/? Does it also happen if the consonant is in the following word? No. Mon, 28 Dec 2009 07:20:29 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >I would assume they are /'pyur@r 'fyuriy en'd(y)uriN 'friyd@m fyuw n(y) >uw bruw/. If <purer> is not /pyuwr@r/ but /pyur@r/, why is <freedom> /friyd@m/ and not /frid@m/? SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Mon, 28 Dec 2009 07:20:29 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If <purer> is not /pyuwr@r/ but /pyur@r/, why is <freedom> /friyd@m/ > and not /frid@m/? Because "friddum" would be a different word. Mon, 28 Dec 2009 11:03:52 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >> Mon, 28 Dec 2009 07:20:29 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" >> <gramma...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Because "friddum" would be a different word. So is pyoorer. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Mon, 28 Dec 2009 11:03:52 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > So is pyoorer. Poorer and purer are different words with the same vowel. There is no word with [Ur]. > Mon, 28 Dec 2009 07:20:29 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" > <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If <purer> is not /pyuwr@r/ but /pyur@r/, why is <freedom> /friyd@m/ > and not /frid@m/? I think you're misinterpreting Peter's conventions. If memory serves, book = /buk/ boot = /buwt/ sick = /sik/ seek = /siyk/ Mon, 28 Dec 2009 15:18:53 -0500: Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net>: in sci.lang: >> Mon, 28 Dec 2009 07:20:29 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" >> <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >sick = /sik/ >seek = /siyk/ Yes, I understand that. It corresponds in British English to /bUk/ and /bu:k/ and /sIk/ and /si:k/. Now <u> in open syllables, and alternate spellings like <ew> in <few>, are /ju:/ in BrE. If BrE /u:/ is /uw/ in Trager-Smith AmE, I don't understand why BrE /ju:/ should sometimes be /u/ and sometimes /uw/ in Trager-Smith AmE. It doesn't make sense from what can be heard. I do admit that BrE and AmE sound quite different, but <few> happens to be one of those words that sounds VERY similar in all types of English, and so does an imitated German Führer that is more like *<furer>. So I'd think making a difference here is simply a mistake. If someone choses to represent this open <u> and <ew> als /uw/, I say: do it consistently. So <Führer> is /fyuwr@r/ and <few> is /fyuw/. But confer: http://m-w.com/dictionary/spurious http://m-w.com/dictionary/few http://m-w.com/dictionary/fuehrer which shows I'm wrong. The Collins English Dictionary (30th Ann. Ed.) says: fy:r@r or fjU@r@, spjU@rI@s, and fju: That's one more confirmation that I'm wrong, this time from my side of the big pond. So I'm wrong! Sorry for wasting everybody's time. I didn't waste mine. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Mon, 28 Dec 2009 15:18:53 -0500: Harlan Messinger > <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > one of those words that sounds VERY similar in all types of English, > and so does an imitated German F hrer that is more like *<furer>. /nuw/ and /njuw/ are in free variation. However, */fuw/ is not an allomorph of "few." > So I'd think making a difference here is simply a mistake. If someone > choses to represent this open <u> and <ew> als /uw/, I say: do it > consistently. So <F hrer> is /fyuwr@r/ and <few> is /fyuw/. Except that this "Fueh" is not homophonous with "few." > But confer:http://m-w.com/dictionary/spurioushttp://m-w.com/dictionary/fewhttp://m-w.com/di ctionary/fuehrer > which shows I'm wrong. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That's one more confirmation that I'm wrong, this time from my side of > the big pond. M-W uses u-umlaut in "few," which is the LOOT vowel, and u-dot in "Fuehrer," which is the FOOT vowel. > So I'm wrong! Sorry for wasting everybody's time. I didn't waste mine. If the foo sh.ts, wear it. (Punchline of a hoary shaggy-dog story.) Mon, 28 Dec 2009 14:03:33 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >/nuw/ and /njuw/ are in free variation. However, */fuw/ is not an >allomorph of "few." Yes, that's right. Did I state otherwise? SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Mon, 28 Dec 2009 14:03:33 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Yes, that's right. Did I state otherwise? In the part you snipped, you said "it doesn't make sense." Facts about language aren't supposed to "make sense." They just _are_. Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:24:45 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >> Mon, 28 Dec 2009 14:03:33 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" >> <gramma...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Facts about language aren't supposed to "make sense." They just _are_. Models are not facts. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 22:44:18 +0100, Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.eu> wrote in <news:rc9ij55sls0fs7fhvlptjf5jgt6borp360@4ax.com> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english: [...] > That's one more confirmation that I'm wrong, this time > from my side of the big pond. > So I'm wrong! Sorry for wasting everybody's time. I didn't > waste mine. What you may have been missing is that even for BrE /u:/, [u:] is a somewhat broad transcription: the vowel begins somewhere around [3] or [U] and moves up and back. Brian Mon, 28 Dec 2009 17:06:05 -0500: "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu>: in sci.lang: >On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 22:44:18 +0100, Ruud Harmsen ><rh@rudhar.eu> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >[u:] is a somewhat broad transcription: the vowel begins >somewhere around [3] or [U] and moves up and back. Seems right. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Mon, 28 Dec 2009 15:18:53 -0500: Harlan Messinger > <hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Trager-Smith AmE. It doesn't make sense from what can be heard. I do > admit that BrE and AmE sound quite different, Then stop discounting that fact! > but <few> happens to be > one of those words that sounds VERY similar in all types of English, > and so does an imitated German Führer that is more like *<furer>. In my American English, the vowel in "purer", "fury", "enduring", and "Führer" is not the same vowel as the one in "few" and, for that matter, "endure". I believe "pure" varies for me: "It's 100% pure" has /uw/, "that's pure entertainment" has "u". > So I'd think making a difference here is simply a mistake. If someone > choses to represent this open <u> and <ew> als /uw/, I say: do it > consistently. So <Führer> is /fyuwr@r/ and <few> is /fyuw/. I don't say /fyuwr@r/. > But confer: > http://m-w.com/dictionary/spurious [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > So I'm wrong! Sorry for wasting everybody's time. I didn't waste mine. Oh, so you realized that Peter wasn't lying! I'll stop arguing then. :-) Mon, 28 Dec 2009 21:11:40 -0500: Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net>: in sci.lang: >> So I'd think making a difference here is simply a mistake. If someone >> choses to represent this open <u> and <ew> als /uw/, I say: do it >> consistently. So <Führer> is /fyuwr@r/ and <few> is /fyuw/. > >I don't say /fyuwr@r/. Of course, nobody can "say" phonemes unless there is a mapping from phonemes to their phonetic realisation in given cercumstances. So what is the realisation, in this situation, of Trager-Smith /w/? Or is the phoneme really /uw/ instead? SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Mon, 28 Dec 2009 21:11:40 -0500: Harlan Messinger > <hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > is the realisation, in this situation, of Trager-Smith /w/? Or is the > phoneme really /uw/ instead? I thought you were using slashes to represent pronunciations. I've seen too many arguments about this between you and Peter. Anyway, the dictionaries aren't giving you purely phonemic pronunciations. If /uw/ were sometimes [u] and sometimes [uw], and the dictionary gave the pronunciation consistently as "uw", that wouldn't give us the slightest idea that the words with the respective pronunciations were supposed to be pronounced differently. Tue, 29 Dec 2009 09:01:38 -0500: Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net>: in sci.lang: >> Mon, 28 Dec 2009 21:11:40 -0500: Harlan Messinger >> <hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> >I thought you were using slashes to represent pronunciations. Of course I don't. That's an urban myth spread by PTD, but that doesn't make it true. >I've seen too many arguments about this between you and Peter. Yes, but nevertheless I always write / / when I mean phonemes and [ ] when I don't. And < > for spelling. >Anyway, the dictionaries aren't giving you purely phonemic >pronunciations. That's right, they provide what they expect their readers will need. That means in bilingual dictionaries, distinctions that are obvious and automatic to native speakers, might still be specified if users find them difficult. >If /uw/ >were sometimes [u] and sometimes [uw], and the dictionary gave the >pronunciation consistently as "uw", that wouldn't give us the slightest >idea that the words with the respective pronunciations were supposed to >be pronounced differently. Right. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Tue, 29 Dec 2009 09:01:38 -0500: Harlan Messinger > <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Yes, but nevertheless I always write / / when I mean phonemes and [ ] > when I don't. And < > for spelling. But since you are still seen to misuse / / and [ ], it's clear that you haven't mastered the concept of "phonemes." > >Anyway, the dictionaries aren't giving you purely phonemic > >pronunciations. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and automatic to native speakers, might still be specified if users > find them difficult. We're not concerned with bilingual dictionaries. English dictionaries provide pronunciation information about a wide range of dialects. > >If /uw/ > >were sometimes [u] and sometimes [uw], and the dictionary gave the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Right. Tue, 29 Dec 2009 07:47:09 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >> Yes, but nevertheless I always write / / when I mean phonemes and [ ] >> when I don't. And < > for spelling. > >But since you are still seen to misuse / / and [ ], it's clear that >you haven't mastered the concept of "phonemes." If I am seen doing that, you must be able to show it. Please do. >> >Anyway, the dictionaries aren't giving you purely phonemic >> >pronunciations. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >We're not concerned with bilingual dictionaries. They do often provide pronunciation info. >English dictionaries >provide pronunciation information about a wide range of dialects. In detail? Never seen that. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Tue, 29 Dec 2009 07:47:09 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > If I am seen doing that, you must be able to show it. Please do. I did so precisely in the message that started this once again. You put "semivowel," a phonemic concept, in [ ]. Tue, 29 Dec 2009 12:22:35 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >> Tue, 29 Dec 2009 07:47:09 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" >> <gramma...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >I did so precisely in the message that started this once again. You >put "semivowel," a phonemic concept, in [ ]. OK, so [j] and [w] as a phonetic concept is meaningless, zilch, nonsensical? Sigh of relief. (Nagging question: why is it they are included in IPA, which is for all languages worldwide, no cannot be phonemic for one language?) What is glide? Phonemic? Phonetic? Both? Neither? What is approximant? Phonemic? Phonetic? Both? Neither? SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Tue, 29 Dec 2009 12:22:35 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > OK, so [j] and [w] as a phonetic concept is meaningless, zilch, > nonsensical? Sigh of relief. No, you idiot. "Semivowel" is not a phonetic concept, but a phonemic one. > (Nagging question: why is it they are included in IPA, which is for > all languages worldwide, no cannot be phonemic for one language?) Did you fail to read my quote from Macmahon, the (former?) Secretary of the IPA? > What is glide? Phonemic? Phonetic? Both? Neither? > What is approximant? Phonemic? Phonetic? Both? Neither? Read a phonetics book. Tue, 29 Dec 2009 12:45:48 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >> OK, so [j] and [w] as a phonetic concept is meaningless, zilch, >> nonsensical? Sigh of relief. > >No, you idiot. "Semivowel" is not a phonetic concept, but a phonemic >one. OK, so [j] and [w] as a phonetic concept is meaningless, zilch, nonsensical? Sigh of relief. Please answer my questions instead of avoiding them. >> (Nagging question: why is it they are included in IPA, which is for >> all languages worldwide, no cannot be phonemic for one language?) > >Did you fail to read my quote from Macmahon, the (former?) Secretary >of the IPA? Can't remember that. Message ID? Posting date? >> What is glide? Phonemic? Phonetic? Both? Neither? >> What is approximant? Phonemic? Phonetic? Both? Neither? > >Read a phonetics book. Answer the questions instead of shunning them. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Tue, 29 Dec 2009 07:47:09 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > In detail? Never seen that. Read the front matter of a Merriam-Webster dictionary. There are pages and pages on pronunciation, with a long paragraph discussing almost every symbol (especially the vowel symbols). > Tue, 29 Dec 2009 09:01:38 -0500: Harlan Messinger > <hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Yes, but nevertheless I always write / / when I mean phonemes and [ ] > when I don't. And < > for spelling. But the arguments tend to be about what you think phonemes are. >> Anyway, the dictionaries aren't giving you purely phonemic >> pronunciations. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and automatic to native speakers, might still be specified if users > find them difficult. In the case of [uw] and [u], nothing is obvious to the native speaker because there is no pattern. For me, soot/suit is [sut]/[suwt] and good/Goode is [gud]/[guwd]. Tue, 29 Dec 2009 10:56:37 -0500: Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net>: in sci.lang: >>> I've seen too many arguments about this between you and Peter. >> >> Yes, but nevertheless I always write / / when I mean phonemes and [ ] >> when I don't. And < > for spelling. > >But the arguments tend to be about what you think phonemes are. I know quite well what phonemes are. It's been discussed ad nauseum. I won't take part in discussing it again. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Tue, 29 Dec 2009 10:56:37 -0500: Harlan Messinger > <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I know quite well what phonemes are. It's been discussed ad nauseum. I > won't take part in discussing it again. You really should stop saying that! Tue, 29 Dec 2009 12:21:14 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >> Tue, 29 Dec 2009 10:56:37 -0500: Harlan Messinger >> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >You really should stop saying that! Why? So you can upkeep your groundless offending urban legend? SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com Ruud Harmsen wrote (29-12-2009 20:43): > Tue, 29 Dec 2009 12:21:14 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" > <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Why? So you can upkeep your groundless offending urban legend? I think he's saying you should stop saying you won't take part in discussing it again. There's a simple way to go about it. I avoid phonemic transcriptions like the plague, not because I don't want to be caught saying dumb things, but because they are seldom if at all needed for the purposes at hand here, and they need a phonological model behind them. Sometimes phonemes are interesting to discuss, but seldom in the context of transcriptions per se. On Dec 29, 3:11 pm, Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote: > > Mon, 28 Dec 2009 15:18:53 -0500: Harlan Messinger > > <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > Oh, so you realized that Peter wasn't lying! I'll stop arguing then. :-) This kinda fits with something I just noticed about my own English a few months ago, namely that when a palatal consonant precedes one of those /ur/ sequences, the vowel tends to centralize even so far as [@r]: this happens in sure, your, cure, pure, Muir, during, bureau. But there is no such tendency with other consonants: poor, boor, dour, tour, Moor, whore (in my boyhood pronunciation), gourd. And of course it is /r/ that makes it happen, so there's no such change in few, new, tune, shoe, etc. So in the present case I am happy to support both dictionaries and other speakers in saying that "few" and "Fuhrer" have different vowels. Ross Clark > Mon, 28 Dec 2009 07:20:29 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > -- > Ruud Harmsen,http://rudhar.com According to my (non-standard) theory all the /yu/ are phonemically / ew/ and therefore /pewr@r/ is exactly parallel to /friyd@m/ >> Sun, 27 Dec 2009 19:10:37 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" >> <gramma...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Have you ever actually heard AmE? (And don't tell me you have a > library of songs to consult.) I've just listened half a dozen times to "few" on Webster's pronunciation and sound dictionary, and I have no idea what you're talking about. It sounds exactly like Ruud's transcription with perhaps the hint of a glottal stop at the end. SignatureRob Bannister > >> Sun, 27 Dec 2009 19:10:37 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" > >> <gramma...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > talking about. It sounds exactly like Ruud's transcription with perhaps > the hint of a glottal stop at the end. If BrE "few" sounds just like AmE "few," then the traditional Br phonemicization with /u:/ is singularly inappropriate. Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:29:33 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >> I've just listened half a dozen times to "few" on Webster's >> pronunciation and sound dictionary, and I have no idea what you're [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >If BrE "few" sounds just like AmE "few," then the traditional Br >phonemicization with /u:/ is singularly inappropriate. Why? BrE /fju:/ means exactly the same as Trager-Smith /fyuw/, only with different symbols and a different model. Are you saying /fyuw/ is also "singularly inappropriate"? (Interesting word, btw, singularly, my new and unwieldy Collins explains it.) SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:29:33 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > (Interesting word, btw, singularly, my new and unwieldy Collins > explains it.) No. I am saying that in AmE, the "long" vowels are not simply prolongations of the vowel sounds as in French (except for [a:]); they are offglides. You now claim that BrE "few" sounds the same as AmE "few," meaning that the vowel is not simply a lengthened short [u], but a diphthong. Therefore, it should not be phonemicized as length. Tue, 29 Dec 2009 07:09:45 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >No. I am saying that in AmE, the "long" vowels are not simply >prolongations of the vowel sounds as in French (except for [a:]); they >are offglides. Some, not all. Same in BrE. >You now claim that BrE "few" sounds the same as AmE >"few," meaning that the vowel is not simply a lengthened short [u], >but a diphthong. http://m-w.com/dictionary/few It does have a onglide, obviously, but the offgilde isn't very clear. What I hear is a continuous change that starts some near [i] (or [j]) and ends somewhere [u] or [w]. There are no abrupt changes. >Therefore, it should not be phonemicized as length. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com >> Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:29:33 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" >> <gramma...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > "few," meaning that the vowel is not simply a lengthened short [u], > but a diphthong. Therefore, it should not be phonemicized as length. I'd have thought the only vowels where length (time it takes to say the vowel, not the name of the letter sense) is important are i/ee. True, the vowels themselves are not identical, but for comprehension it is the vowel length that has the greatest importance. Say "ship" with a long vowel, and your listener will hear "sheep" (possibly with a funny accent). I believe there is one British accent where "sheep" does have a short vowel, but of course anyone else will still hear "ship". The thought of "sheet" with a short vowel is quite horrific. SignatureRob Bannister Wed, 30 Dec 2009 07:28:01 +0800: Robert Bannister <robban1@bigpond.com>: in sci.lang: >I'd have thought the only vowels where length (time it takes to say the >vowel, not the name of the letter sense) is important are i/ee. True, >the vowels themselves are not identical, but for comprehension it is the >vowel length that has the greatest importance. Why? Why does any of the two have to have the greatest importance? Couldn't it be just both? When striving at understandability & maximum constrast, using more than one feature seems a good strategy. Unfortunately, phoneme theories forbid it, but that doesn't keep natural languages from using it anyway. Cf. Hungarian /a/ vs. /a:/ where /a/ = [O] and /a:/ is [a:]. Extra contrast: easier to understand. Win-win situation. Same with Hungarian /e/ vs. /e:/ = [æ] vs. [e:]. Not possible according to phonology scholars, nevertheless seen in the wild. So be it. >Say "ship" with a long vowel, and your listener will >hear "sheep" (possibly with a funny accent). I'd rather expect this to be interpreted as "shape" in some Northern English or Norther Irish accent. >I believe there is one British accent where "sheep" does have a >short vowel, Scottish English. There are no length differences in Scottish English, all vowels are short. >but of course anyone else will still hear "ship". Wouldn't think so. Scots are easy to understand to any English speaker and foreigners alike, as long as they speak standard English with an accent, and not their own Scots dialect. >The thought of "sheet" with a short vowel is quite horrific. It sounds like an Italian saying sh.t or a Scotsman saying simply "sheet". No problem at all. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 00:48:02 +0100, Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.eu> wrote in <news:f25lj5p5u1gsqolbo6f3ni87bqbe92kugh@4ax.com> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > Wed, 30 Dec 2009 07:28:01 +0800: Robert Bannister > <robban1@bigpond.com>: in sci.lang: >> I'd have thought the only vowels where length (time it >> takes to say the vowel, not the name of the letter >> sense) is important are i/ee. True, the vowels >> themselves are not identical, but for comprehension it >> is the vowel length that has the greatest importance. > Why? Why does any of the two have to have the greatest > importance? Couldn't it be just both? When striving at > understandability & maximum constrast, using more than > one feature seems a good strategy. Unfortunately, phoneme > theories forbid it, but that doesn't keep natural > languages from using it anyway. > Cf. Hungarian /a/ vs. /a:/ where /a/ = [O] More like [A.] in my experience. > and /a:/ is [a:]. Extra contrast: easier to understand. > Win-win situation. Same with Hungarian /e/ vs. /e:/ = [æ] > vs. [e:]. > Not possible according to phonology scholars, You don't help yourself by making such ridiculous statements. > nevertheless seen in the wild. So be it. [...] >> I believe there is one British accent where "sheep" does >> have a short vowel, > Scottish English. There are no length differences in > Scottish English, all vowels are short. *Phonemically* short, but not *phonetically*. The vowel in <sheep> should be phonetically short, according to the Scottish Vowel Length Rule. [...] Brian Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:54:33 -0500: "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu>: in sci.lang: >> Cf. Hungarian /a/ vs. /a:/ where /a/ = [O] > >More like [A.] in my experience. I think so too, but some sources say otherwise. Anyway, there is a length contrast AND a vowel quality contrast. Impossible according to phoneme theory (or anyway, one has to ignore either one of them), but manifest in live natural languages. >> and /a:/ is [a:]. Extra contrast: easier to understand. >> Win-win situation. Same with Hungarian /e/ vs. /e:/ = [æ] [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >You don't help yourself by making such ridiculous >statements. It's based on what Peter T. Daniels taught me. I don't have the quote handy, but it's what he said. Transposed to English: could the difference between <full> and <fool> be both a length difference AND a vowel quality difference? PTD says: "no, length is not phonemic". Or so I remember, am I wrong? SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:54:33 -0500: "Brian M. Scott" > <b.sc...@csuohio.edu>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > be both a length difference AND a vowel quality difference? PTD says: > "no, length is not phonemic". Or so I remember, am I wrong? Why can you not understand that an abstract system should not have any more distinctions than are absolutely necessary to keep all the members of the system apart? Redundancy is important in the fallible physical world. It is anathema in the world of the abstract. Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:43:31 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >> Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:54:33 -0500: "Brian M. Scott" >> <b.sc...@csuohio.edu>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >more distinctions than are absolutely necessary to keep all the >members of the system apart? I can accept it as a model, only I don't think such models describe how human language really works. Real languages often use multiple distinctions, and for a reason: better understandability. >Redundancy is important in the fallible >physical world. It is anathema in the world of the abstract. Yes, but distinguishing what is redundancy and what is "absolutely necessary" is often impossible and useless. Then, abstract models lose their meaning, they are no longer useful to describe reality. Two features, each by itself redundant in relation to the other, may together make the "absolutely necessary". Chosing one of them as "absolutely necessary" is then an arbitrary choice with no bearing with reality. Useless academic ivory tower work. That's my objection. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:43:31 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" > <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > "absolutely necessary" is then an arbitrary choice with no bearing > with reality. Useless academic ivory tower work. That's my objection. There has been a trend towards more concreteness and less abstraction in phonological theory for a while now, which phonetic (and psychoacoustic) reality playing more and more of a role in shaping the theory. However, there are still unfortunately a few holdouts whose vision of phonology hasn't matured since the 1960s; they are more concerned with streamlining and beautifying the formal theory, rather than accounting for the broader range of empirical facts that we now realize are important. Nathan SignatureNathan Sanders Linguistics Program Williams College http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/ Wed, 30 Dec 2009 03:56:47 -0500: Nathan Sanders <nsanders@williams.edu>: in sci.lang: >There has been a trend towards more concreteness and less abstraction >in phonological theory for a while now, which phonetic (and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >than accounting for the broader range of empirical facts that we now >realize are important. Finally something I can understand and appreciate. Thanks for this. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > In article <jr3mj5h3unab2fblohp5nb61muinbvq...@4ax.com>, > > Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:43:31 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > than accounting for the broader range of empirical facts that we now > realize are important. Then howcome the gurus of such things, McCarthy and Goldsmith, insisted on incorporating segments (Cs and Vs) into their theory, when there's no physical evidence for segments in the speech stream? Way back in 1977, at the NACAL in Ithaca, John McCarthy presented his dissertation research, and the two monsters of Semitic philology Moshe Goshen-Gottstein and Moshe Held, sitting side by side, demonstrated with unseemly glee that the fellow's familiarity with the language he was ostensibly presenting an analysis of -- Biblical Hebrew -- was sadly lacking. OTOH, I hope you're not referring to OT. At the 1998 LSA in NY (could it have been '97 in Chicago?), I overheard someone in an elevator remark that OT was the very first theory that was obsolete before it had even been published (indeed, the samizdat Prince & Smolensky finally did have proper publication, available to those of us who did _not_ have access to the kind of limited-access websites prevailing in those days, many years later). In article <8a22945b-17fd-4603-a304-6835a813364b@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, > > In article <jr3mj5h3unab2fblohp5nb61muinbvq...@4ax.com>, > > > Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:43:31 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > insisted on incorporating segments (Cs and Vs) into their theory, when > there's no physical evidence for segments in the speech stream? Two answers: (1) I said "more concreteness", not "complete concreteness". Phonology is still a formal theory and thus will always have some abstraction. (2) There may be no phonetic evidence for segments, but there most certainly is psychoacoustic evidence. (But if you don't like segments in your theory, try Browman and Goldstein's Articulatory Phonology.) > Way > back in 1977, at the NACAL in Ithaca, John McCarthy presented his [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > OTOH, I hope you're not referring to OT. I am not. I'm talking about theories like Articulatory Phonology, Steven's Quantal Theory, Liljencrants and Lindblom's Adaptive Dispersion (and Flemming's import of it into OT as Dispersion Theory), Steriade's P-Map, Boersma's Functional Phonology, etc. Nathan SignatureNathan Sanders Linguistics Program Williams College http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/ Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:54:33 -0500: "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu>: in sci.lang: >>> I believe there is one British accent where "sheep" does >>> have a short vowel, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] ><sheep> should be phonetically short, according to the >Scottish Vowel Length Rule. You seem to contradict yourself, or else I misunderstand. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 01:03:45 +0100, Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.eu> wrote in <news:r56lj51v9a8ta7b73b45q0lab7pjphs94p@4ax.com> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:54:33 -0500: "Brian M. Scott" > <b.scott@csuohio.edu>: in sci.lang: >>>> I believe there is one British accent where "sheep" does >>>> have a short vowel, >>> Scottish English. There are no length differences in >>> Scottish English, all vowels are short. >>*Phonemically* short, but not *phonetically*. The vowel in >><sheep> should be phonetically short, according to the >>Scottish Vowel Length Rule. > You seem to contradict yourself, or else I misunderstand. You must misunderstand, but I don't understand how. The vowel in SSE <sheep> happens to be phonetically short, but there are contexts in which SSE /i/ is [i:]. Brian > On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 01:03:45 +0100, Ruud Harmsen > <r...@rudhar.eu> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Brian For any readers of the thread who haven't come across the rule, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Vowel_Length_Rule. Note that the long/short variation is conditioned partly by phonological environment and partly by morpheme boundaries. Thu, 31 Dec 2009 07:50:40 -0800 (PST): Andrew Woode <andrew_woode@hotmail.com>: in sci.lang: >For any readers of the thread who haven't come across the rule, see >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Vowel_Length_Rule. > >Note that the long/short variation is conditioned partly by >phonological environment >and partly by morpheme boundaries. What's that ø phoneme that is mentioned there? (Despite the [ ] they do probably mean phonemes). No explanation in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_English#Phonology SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 19:14:19 +0100, Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.eu> wrote in <news:0cqpj5dks87fhc4a2g9d5r6h1n673i0mhp@4ax.com> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > Thu, 31 Dec 2009 07:50:40 -0800 (PST): Andrew Woode > <andrew_woode@hotmail.com>: in sci.lang: >>For any readers of the thread who haven't come across the rule, see >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Vowel_Length_Rule. >>Note that the long/short variation is conditioned partly by >>phonological environment >>and partly by morpheme boundaries. > What's that ø phoneme that is mentioned there? (Despite the [ ] they > do probably mean phonemes). That's the symbol chosen by the editors of the Concise Scots Dictionary. They say that it's found chiefly in Shetland, Orkney, Angus, Perthshire, and Southern Scots dialects 'as a more or less rounded front vowel, ranging in quality from the vowels in French <lune>, German <über> to those in French <peu>, German <schön>'. > No explanation in > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_English#Phonology It appears to correspond to their barred-u. Brian > On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 19:14:19 +0100, Ruud Harmsen > <r...@rudhar.eu> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Brian See also the reference in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_language (under the spelling 'ui'). While both Scots and Scottish (Standard) English have largely similar phonology and obey the Scottish Vowel Length Rule, they are not the same language and have nothing like the same vowel distribution in historically related words; Scottish English derives from using a generally Scots phonology for a version of Standard English ultimately deriving from south of the border. The distinction between the vowels of Scots <cou> (something like [ku], 'cow') and <guid> ([gYd], [gyd] 'good' etc) isn't really needed for Scottish English. > > On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 01:03:45 +0100, Ruud Harmsen > > <r...@rudhar.eu> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > phonological environment > and partly by morpheme boundaries.- That "morpheme boundary" claim might help explain an assertion by the Southeast Asianist Shorto that he could hear a difference between items equivalent to the stayed/staid example. The article is called something like "Old wine in new phonological bottles" and I think it might be in an early number of JIPA (it's reproduced from typescript). > >> Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:29:33 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" > >> <gramma...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > short vowel, but of course anyone else will still hear "ship". The > thought of "sheet" with a short vowel is quite horrific. I detect no length difference between "sheep" and "ship," "sheet" and "sh.t." Petey T. Daniels wrote: [...] >> I'd have thought the only vowels where length (time it takes to say the >> vowel, not the name of the letter sense) is important are i/ee. True, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I detect no length difference between "sheep" and "ship," > "sheet" and "sh.t." What a pity, Petey. (Get eat?) Signature~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~ Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:38:18 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >I detect no length difference between "sheep" and "ship," >sheet" and "sh.t." Neither do I when listening to m-w.com. Must be a BrE thing then. The Oxford Collocation Dictionary comes with a cd-rom which (among other things) contains spoken pronunciations of all the words, BrE and AmE side by side. There seems to be some length difference in AmE too, but much less pronounced than in BrE. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:38:18 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" > <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Neither do I when listening to m-w.com. Must be a BrE thing then. I tried dragging "shi-i-i-ip" out for over two seconds. I can't believe any American would think I was saying "sheep," but I'll try it out on a British friend on Friday. >> "Peter T. Daniels": >>> I detect no length difference between "sheep" and "ship," >>> sheet" and "sh.t." [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > believe any American would think I was saying "sheep," but I'll try > it out on a British friend on Friday. Hmm. There is a big vowel length (duration) difference between "ship" and "sheep". Same with "sh.t" and "sheet". It's the unusual use of "length" by linguists to describe totally different vowels (diphthongs, even) that throws a monkey wrench in the works. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >> Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:38:18 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" >> <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > any American would think I was saying "sheep," but I'll try it out on a > British friend on Friday. I am having difficulty in imagining what vowel you are using. Do you, like some Scots and New Zealanders, perhaps use the "butt" vowel for short i? Someone else claimed it would sound like an undiphthongised "shape", so perhaps it is the "bat" vowel. I am sincerely puzzled. I have no difficulty in understanding most Americans, but I had never noticed that their "ships" didn't sound like "ships". SignatureRob Bannister Thu, 31 Dec 2009 07:01:31 +0800: Robert Bannister <robban1@bigpond.com>: in sci.lang: >I am having difficulty in imagining what vowel you are using. Do you, >like some Scots and New Zealanders, perhaps use the "butt" vowel for >short i? Someone else claimed it would sound like an undiphthongised >"shape", Don't know if you refer to me, but I only suggested a Northern English or Norther Irish "shape". Manchester, Liverpool, that kind of thing. >so perhaps it is the "bat" vowel. Really? Does "shape" start with the bat vowel anywhere? >I am sincerely puzzled. I have no difficulty in understanding most >Americans, but I had never noticed that their "ships" didn't sound like >"ships". The sample at m-w.com sounds pretty non-unusual, and hardly different from BrE. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com >>> Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:38:18 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" >>> <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Americans, but I had never noticed that their "ships" didn't sound like > "ships". I'm puzzled too. I read what I said as meaning "I said [SI::::::::::::::p] and it didn't sound like [Si::::::::;;;:p]." Bart Mathias >> Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:38:18 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" >> <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > any American would think I was saying "sheep," but I'll try it out on a > British friend on Friday. Once upon a time when I started learning English I attended full time English language lessons at the E. Language Institute of the Victoria University in Wellington. It was intended for the Colombo Plan students from Middle and Far East countries who already had had some English training in their respective countries. They were kind to let me join in the lessons as well as use the language lab equipment for no charge. I attended for about 6 weeks before I started working. The students from different countries had variety of different problems with English. The Vietnamese seemed to be unable to pronounce long syllables. I remember well one particular longish exchange between the professor and a Vietnamese student: ...... P: No, no, no, repeat after me: This is a sheet of paper. S: Disiz a sh.t of pepper. P: No, try again and stretch out the long syllables: This is a sheeeet of paaaayper. S: Dis iz a....sh.t....of...pepper...? P standing over the student: Sheeeet of paaaaayper. S: sh.t of pepper. P: Sheeeet. Student concentrating: ....sh.t. P: Sheeeet, sheeeet, sheeeet, sheeeet. Student with deadly serious expression: sh.t, sh.t, sh.t, sh.t. He shrugged his shoulders, he didn't understand what he was doing wrong, he didn't just say it wrong, he heard sheet and sh.t as two identical words. pjk Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:43:37 +1300: "PaulJK" <paul.kriha@paradise.net.nz>: in sci.lang: >>> Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:38:18 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" >>> <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >P: Sheeeet, sheeeet, sheeeet, sheeeet. >Student with deadly serious expression: sh.t, sh.t, sh.t, sh.t. Strange. Vietnames according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_language#Vowels has /e/ and /i/. Would those do nicely to create a reasonable sh.t/sheet contrast, even without length or any length difference. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:43:37 +1300: "PaulJK" > <paul.kriha@paradise.net.nz>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > /i/. Would those do nicely to create a reasonable sh.t/sheet contrast, > even without length or any length difference. What do you mean, /e/? The professor was an Englishman, he was teaching BrE pronounciation. AFAIR, the _only_ difference between the sheet/sh.t vowels was their lengths. pjk Fri, 1 Jan 2010 02:22:51 +1300: "PaulJK" <paul.kriha@paradise.net.nz>: in sci.lang: >> Strange. Vietnames according to >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_language#Vowels has /e/ and >> /i/. Would those do nicely to create a reasonable sh.t/sheet contrast, >> even without length or any length difference. > >What do you mean, /e/? Vietnames /e/, <ê> hopefully close to [e]. To me, there is little difference between [e] and [I]. >The professor was an Englishman, he was teaching BrE >pronounciation. AFAIR, the _only_ difference between the >sheet/sh.t vowels was their lengths. Sorry, but that is simply incorrect, for any kind of English (except of course that spoken with a heavy Spanish or Italian accent). SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Fri, 1 Jan 2010 02:22:51 +1300: "PaulJK" <paul.kr...@paradise.net.nz>: > in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Vietnames /e/, <ê> hopefully close to [e]. To me, there is little > difference between [e] and [I]. That says a very, very, very great deal about your phonetic ability! Or did you mean [E] and [I], which have indeed merged in some environments in some varieties of AmE? > >The professor was an Englishman, he was teaching BrE > >pronounciation. AFAIR, the _only_ difference between the > >sheet/sh.t vowels was their lengths. > > Sorry, but that is simply incorrect, for any kind of English (except > of course that spoken with a heavy Spanish or Italian accent). ... and they would prolong "pure" vowels instead of using an offglide ... >> Vietnamese /e/, <ê> hopefully close to [e]. To me, there is little >> difference between [e] and [I]. Thu, 31 Dec 2009 07:47:56 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >That says a very, very, very great deal about your phonetic ability! > >Or did you mean [E] and [I], which have indeed merged in some >environments in some varieties of AmE? No, I didn't. I was talking about the first element of my Dutch /e:/ phoneme, which is quite a lot English <ay> in <day>, has a glide, and which seemed similar (at age 16 or 17 in 1972, and still does) to the Dutch vowel in <dit>, which is similar to that in English <this>. Likewise, I identified the start of Dutch <eu> with the vowel in <dus> (which is NOT the same as that in English <thus>, although some of my compatriotes think so). >> Sorry, but that is simply incorrect, for any kind of English (except >> of course that spoken with a heavy Spanish or Italian accent). > >... and they would prolong "pure" vowels instead of using an >offglide ... Yo creo queeeeeeeeeeee, no sé. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > > Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:43:37 +1300: "PaulJK" > > <paul.kr...@paradise.net.nz>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > pronounciation. AFAIR, the _only_ difference between the > sheet/sh.t vowels was their lengths. Were they [i] or [I]? Either way, it's no wonder the poor Annamite was unable to make the proper distinction! >>> Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:38:18 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" >>> <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > he was doing wrong, he didn't just say it wrong, he heard > sheet and sh.t as two identical words. My Slav friends have a similar problem, but the other way round. Most English speakers have difficulty in distinguishing those Indian consonants they write an h after. SignatureRob Bannister >>>> Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:29:33 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" >>>> <gramma...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > I detect no length difference between "sheep" and "ship," "sheet" and > "sh.t." I'm not sure how analysis is done; I presume it requires expensive electronic equipment, but there is definitely something wrong either with your ears or with the way you and everyone in your immediate vicinity speak. Length is the most significant difference for communication. The vowel quality is relatively unimportant. I suspect you are simply saying this in order to maintain a theory. SignatureRob Bannister >> I detect no length difference between "sheep" and "ship," "sheet" and >> "sh.t." [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > quality is relatively unimportant. I suspect you are simply saying > this in order to maintain a theory. Petey probably thinks those people on TV really are talking about piss in the Middle East. SignatureRegards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au > >>>> Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:29:33 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" > >>>> <gramma...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > quality is relatively unimportant. I suspect you are simply saying this > in order to maintain a theory. It's significant where it exists. The difference between "ship" and "sheep" is the difference between a mid-high near-front lax vowel and a high front tense vowel. Vowels are lengthened in closed syllables before a voiced consonant, so "sheeb" would have a longer vowel than "sheep." But the difference between "pick" and "peek" is nothing like the difference between "pick" and "pig." Pitiful Petey T. Daniels wrote: [...] >>>> I'd have thought the only vowels where length (time it takes to say >>>> the vowel, not the name of the letter sense) is important are i/ee. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>>> does have a short vowel, but of course anyone else will still hear >>>> "ship". The thought of "sheet" with a short vowel is quite horrific. [Petey:] >>> I detect no length difference between "sheep" and "ship," >>> "sheet" and "sh.t." [Robert:] >> I'm not sure how analysis is done; I presume it requires expensive >> electronic equipment, but there is definitely something wrong either [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> quality is relatively unimportant. I suspect you are simply saying this >> in order to maintain a theory. Look, guys, here comes Mr. Super-Weasel again with his usual *irrelevant* bullsheet fog and high-tech linguistic mumbo-jumbo in his usual attempt to impress hoi polloi and to shut up the ignorant masses: [Petey:] > It's significant where it exists. No sheet! [Petey:] > The difference between "ship" and "sheep" is the difference between a > mid-high near-front lax vowel and a high front tense vowel. Horseshit!!! That difference is goddamn *unimportant*! The far more important difference between them is the LENGTH (duration) of the vowels. The difference in vowel LENGTH (duration) *is significant* and *does exist* between "ship" /SIp/ and "sheep" /Si:p/, "piss" /pIs/ and "peace" /pi:s/, "bitch" /bItS/ and "beach" /bi:tS/, "it" /It/ and "eat" /i:t/, "sh.t" /SIt/ and "sheet" /Si:t/, "pity" /pIti/ and "Petey" /pi:ti/ and many more. The difference between /I/ and /i/ is unimportant. Petey, you can shove your "mid-high near-front lax vowel" /I/ and "high front tense vowel" /i/ up your lax bowels, because this information is *irrelevant* here. The point of this discussion is not the QUALITY but the LENGTH of vowels. And here comes more totally *irrelevant* bullsheet: [Petey:] > Vowels are lengthened in closed syllables before a voiced consonant, > so "sheeb" would have a longer vowel than "sheep." Irrelevant and horsesheet! The vowel length is (almost) exactly identical in "sheeb" /Si:b/ and "sheep" /Si:p/ but FAR LONGER than in "ship" /SIp/. [Petey:] > But the difference between "pick" and "peek" is nothing like the > difference between "pick" and "pig." So? The vowel in "pick" is SHORT /pIk/, but LONG in "peek" /pi:k/. Funny, Pity, even though you can't detect the *OBVIOUS* vowel-length difference between long "sheep" /Si:p/ (or even doubly long /Si::p/) and short "ship" /SIp/ or long "sheet" /Si:t/ (or even doubly long /Si::t/) and short "sh.t" /SIt/, your amazingly screwed-up ears and brain can detect the MINUTE difference in vowel length (if any) between "pick" /pIk/ and "pig" /pI·g/. Signature~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~ Wed, 30 Dec 2009 23:29:12 -0800: Reinhold {Rey} Aman <aman@sonic.net>: in sci.lang: >[Petey:] >> The difference between "ship" and "sheep" is the difference between a >> mid-high near-front lax vowel and a high front tense vowel. >> >Horseshit!!! That difference is goddamn *unimportant*! The far more >important difference between them is the LENGTH (duration) of the vowels. Talking about AmE or BrE? But even for the latter, I'd both are important, not that length alone is the deciding factor. >The difference in vowel LENGTH (duration) *is significant* and *does >exist* between "ship" /SIp/ and "sheep" /Si:p/, "piss" /pIs/ and "peace" >/pi:s/, "bitch" /bItS/ and "beach" /bi:tS/, "it" /It/ and "eat" /i:t/, >"sh.t" /SIt/ and "sheet" /Si:t/, "pity" /pIti/ and "Petey" /pi:ti/ and >many more. The difference between /I/ and /i/ is unimportant. Why? Dutch has hardly any length difference between its /I/ and /i/ (except when /r/ follows), and vowel qualities happen to be rather similar to those of the English sh.t/sheet vowels. And I NEVER heard of any Dutch speaker having trouble distinguishing ship/sheep, sh.t/sheet, nor of any stories where they are misunderstood. The jokes are always about Italians, never about Dutch people. Why is that, do think? (My Dutch /I/ <i> and /i/ <ie> can be heard here: http://rudhar.com/lingtics/intrdutc/dutch.htm ) SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com Ruud Harmsen wrote (31-12-2009 08:38): > Wed, 30 Dec 2009 23:29:12 -0800: Reinhold {Rey} Aman<aman@sonic.net>: > in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Why? Obviously because Rhes heard somewhere that the <ee> sound is called LONG e. Do you think for a second he is able to measure vowel length? > Wed, 30 Dec 2009 23:29:12 -0800: Reinhold {Rey} Aman <aman@sonic.net>: > in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Talking about AmE or BrE? But even for the latter, I'd both are > important, not that length alone is the deciding factor. Certainly in my BrE, lengthening the vowel in "ship" produces ship-with-a-drawn-out-vowel, not anything like "sheep". I accept that shortening "sheep" (much harder) does come out more like "ship", but it's so hard to do it's not going to be very accurate. I've argued long and hard with Peter before now, but I have to agree with him that there is a vowel sound issue that feels much more important to me than the length. SignatureOnline waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk >> Wed, 30 Dec 2009 23:29:12 -0800: Reinhold {Rey} Aman <aman@sonic.net>: >> in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > with him that there is a vowel sound issue that feels much more > important to me than the length. AOL SignatureJames >>> Wed, 30 Dec 2009 23:29:12 -0800: Reinhold {Rey} Aman <aman@sonic.net>: >>> in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > AOL That surprises me. I always assumed you were American. SignatureRob Bannister >>>> Wed, 30 Dec 2009 23:29:12 -0800: Reinhold {Rey} Aman <aman@sonic.net>: >>>> in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > That surprises me. I always assumed you were American. Have I really given that impression? SignatureJames >> Wed, 30 Dec 2009 23:29:12 -0800: Reinhold {Rey} Aman <aman@sonic.net>: >> in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > with him that there is a vowel sound issue that feels much more > important to me than the length. We have large, very smelly vessels at Fremantle harbour engaged in the rather cruel practice of transporting live sheep. Some people call them "sheep-ships". I can, if I try very hard, say "sheep-ship" with equal length syllables, but it tends to sound as though I'm repeating myself even though I am really using two different vowels. SignatureRob Bannister > Wed, 30 Dec 2009 23:29:12 -0800: Reinhold {Rey} Aman <aman@sonic.net>: > in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > (My Dutch /I/ <i> and /i/ <ie> can be heard here: > http://rudhar.com/lingtics/intrdutc/dutch.htm ) I couldn't find an [i:] there. As an aside, your pronunciation of "huis" is quite different from the way I've heard other Dutch people say it - a rather ugly sound I find very difficult to reproduce. SignatureRob Bannister Fri, 01 Jan 2010 07:24:18 +0800: Robert Bannister <robban1@bigpond.com>: in sci.lang: >> (My Dutch /I/ <i> and /i/ <ie> can be heard here: >> http://rudhar.com/lingtics/intrdutc/dutch.htm ) >I couldn't find an [i:] there. There is only <bier> which is /bir/ which is something like [bi:@], due to the /r/. There is no good example of an /i/ that's simply [i], because I forgot to include it! >As an aside, your pronunciation of "huis" is quite different >from the way I've heard other Dutch people say it There are variants (difficult to describe) but mine's the standard. (Of course!, ha ha). >- a rather ugly sound I find very difficult to reproduce. Well, ugly? I don't know. Strange, yes. Difficult? Perhaps not if you know it's simply [9y], in other words [Ei] but a little less front and with liprounding. (The symbols here do not represent separate vowels but rather start and end points, between which some quality change occurs. How much depends.) SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Pitiful Petey T. Daniels wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > "sh.t" /SIt/ and "sheet" /Si:t/, "pity" /pIti/ and "Petey" /pi:ti/ and > many more. The difference between /I/ and /i/ is unimportant. > [...] > And here comes more totally *irrelevant* bullsheet: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > identical in "sheeb" /Si:b/ and "sheep" /Si:p/ but FAR LONGER than in > "ship" /SIp/. I don't have spectrograms to hand, but my impression is exactly the opposite. > [Petey:] >> But the difference between "pick" and "peek" is nothing like the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > detect the MINUTE difference in vowel length (if any) between "pick" > /pIk/ and "pig" /pI·g/. I wonder if I heard you speak, would I have the impression that you talk funny? Bart Mathias > > Pitiful Petey T. Daniels wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > I wonder if I heard you speak, would I have the impression that you talk > funny? I had that displeasure many years ago (I don't recall the occasion), and indeed he did. The Bavarian I knew best, Dietz Otto Edzard, had an ordinary German accent in English. Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:34:06 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >Vowels are lengthened in closed syllables before a voiced consonant, >so "sheeb" would have a longer vowel than "sheep." But the difference >between "pick" and "peek" is nothing like the difference between >"pick" and "pig." After listening to m-w.com and the samples op de cdrom to the Oxford Collocation, I can only say Peter's right. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com >>>>>> Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:29:33 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" >>>>>> <gramma...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > "sheep" is the difference between a mid-high near-front lax vowel and > a high front tense vowel. There is undoubtedly a difference, but that is not how most English speakers tell the words apart. > Vowels are lengthened in closed syllables before a voiced consonant, > so "sheeb" would have a longer vowel than "sheep." But the difference > between "pick" and "peek" is nothing like the difference between > "pick" and "pig." This lengthening before voiced consonants is purely an American phenomenon and is therefore not descriptive of "English". Someone with a cold could easily pronounce "pick" in a way so that non-Americans would hear "pig". SignatureRob Bannister >>> Length is the most significant difference for communication. The vowel >>> quality is relatively unimportant. I suspect you are simply saying this [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> "sheep" is the difference between a mid-high near-front lax vowel and >> a high front tense vowel. Fri, 01 Jan 2010 07:19:14 +0800: Robert Bannister <robban1@bigpond.com>: in sci.lang: >There is undoubtedly a difference, but that is not how most English >speakers tell the words apart. How can you know? Do people consciously detect features and then decide they heard this word or another? (Retorical question, in case anyone might wonder.) >This lengthening before voiced consonants is purely an American >phenomenon and is therefore not descriptive of "English". It also happens in British English as per the Oxford Collocations CDROM. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > >>>>>> Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:29:33 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" > >>>>>> <gramma...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > There is undoubtedly a difference, but that is not how most English > speakers tell the words apart. Why won't any of you say whether "sheep" is [SI:::p] or "ship" is [Sip] ? Because you know it isn't so. >On Jan 3, 1:43 pm, Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.eu> wrote: >> Sun, 3 Jan 2010 05:54:24 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> >And, even after you type it correctly, you're simply wrong. >> Simply? Peter T. Daniels, 3 Jan 2010, 21:16: >/iy/ is [ij], unless you have a very peculiar understanding of [j]. It's not about [j]. You originally typed [Ij] instead of [ij], which is why I objected. Meanwhile you correctly use [ij]. Then it's alright. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > >On Jan 3, 1:43 pm, Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.eu> wrote: > >> Sun, 3 Jan 2010 05:54:24 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > is why I objected. Meanwhile you correctly use [ij]. Then it's > alright. No, [I] is correct. The diphthong does not begin with a fully high, front, and tense vowel! Mon, 4 Jan 2010 04:32:12 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >> >> >> >that /iy/ [Ij] and /e/ [E] are distinct phonemes). >> Peter T. Daniels, 3 Jan 2010, 21:16: >> >/iy/ is [ij], unless you have a very peculiar understanding of [j]. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >No, [I] is correct. The diphthong does not begin with a fully high, >front, and tense vowel! So what you are saying is that a ship vowel, followed by the yes approximant, produces the sheep vowel? I doubt it, and predict that it will either sound very un-English, or Australian/New-Zealandisch or more like a shape vowel. But not like a British or American sheep. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com Tue, 29 Dec 2009 08:03:23 +0800: Robert Bannister <robban1@bigpond.com>: in sci.lang: >>> Sun, 27 Dec 2009 19:10:37 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" >>> <gramma...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >talking about. It sounds exactly like Ruud's transcription with perhaps >the hint of a glottal stop at the end. That's because Trager-Smith "glides" are only a phonological device to make a nice symmetrical vowel scheme for American English. Their /w/, /y/ and /@/ glides don't necessarily have anything to do with a phonetic reality, with actual sounds observed in speech. So if you hear AmE <few> as [fju:], that doesn't mean it cannot also be /fyuw/. Phonemes are all about modelling a language, much less about pronunciation. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Tue, 29 Dec 2009 08:03:23 +0800: Robert Bannister > <robb...@bigpond.com>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > /y/ and /@/ glides don't necessarily have anything to do with a > phonetic reality, with actual sounds observed in speech. You think it's just coincidence that they _do_ have to do with a phonetic reality, with actual sounds observed in speech? > So if you hear AmE <few> as [fju:], that doesn't mean it cannot also > be /fyuw/. If you hear AmE "few" as [fju:], then your ear is lousy, and you need a remedial phonetics class pronto. > Phonemes are all about modelling a language, much less about > pronunciation. Phonemicizations are grounded in phonetic facts. Note that even David Kleinecke, in proposing /ew/ for [juw], confessed that he doesn't unite /h/ and /N/ into a single phoneme (which is an entirely legitimate proposal on distributional grounds -- note that phonetically, the difference is simply [+/-nasal], so why not?) . Tue, 29 Dec 2009 07:14:38 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >> So if you hear AmE <few> as [fju:], that doesn't mean it cannot also >> be /fyuw/. > >If you hear AmE "few" as [fju:], then your ear is lousy, and you need >a remedial phonetics class pronto. If you can hear this so much better than I can, please answer this: Where in the sound sample given at http://m-w.com/dictionary/few http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/audio.pl?few00001=few does the [j] end and the [u] start? When does the [u] end and the [w] start? In seconds or percentage of total sample duration? You do think this could be determined by formant measurements? Does it make sense to know that, for language reality or for phonemisation? Would it really sound noticeably different if the [w] were not present? Would you say Dutch /Ei/ has an offglide, seeing that it often doesn't even reach [i] let alone [j] (when understanding [j] as an approximant = something higher than [i])? http://rudhar.com/fonetics/yzrpyply/ei.htm , second part July 2002. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Tue, 29 Dec 2009 07:14:38 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > If you can hear this so much better than I can, please answer this: If you want to buy me a computer whose sound works (or to figure out why my computer has no sound even though Windows reports everything relating to sound is working properly), then _maybe_ I'll listen to your samples. > Where in the sound sample given athttp://m-w.com/dictionary/fewhttp://m-w.com/cgi-bin/audio.pl?few00001=few > does the [j] end and the [u] start? When does the [u] end and the [w] [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > even reach [i] let alone [j] (when understanding [j] as an approximant > = something higher than [i])? How can something be "higher than [i]"? > http://rudhar.com/fonetics/yzrpyply/ei.htm, second part July 2002. Tue, 29 Dec 2009 12:27:40 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >If you want to buy me a computer whose sound works (or to figure out >why my computer has no sound even though Windows reports everything >relating to sound is working properly), then _maybe_ I'll listen to >your samples. Don't be ridiculous. Every computer since 1998 has sound built in. >> Where in the sound sample given athttp://m-w.com/dictionary/fewhttp://m-w.com/cgi-bin/audio.pl?few00001=few >> does the [j] end and the [u] start? When does the [u] end and the [w] [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >How can something be "higher than [i]"? OK. So [j] is nonexistent by definition? Sigh of relief. If not, what is [j]? What is [w]? Is [w] higher than [u]? Are /j/ and /w/ phonological only? Would you agree that this whole / / vs. [ ] is just a mess because even the self-appointed experts, such as you, can't answer even the simplest questions about it? Merriam Webster uses \ \ because it doesn't know what to use. Collins uses ( ) because it doesn't know what to use. Sampa/Wells doesn't use anything because they don't know what to use. Confusion all around. But when I mention the problems, _I_ am the supposedly the one who doesn't understand, right? That's how modern science works. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Tue, 29 Dec 2009 08:03:23 +0800: Robert Bannister > <robban1@bigpond.com>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > So if you hear AmE <few> as [fju:], that doesn't mean it cannot also > be /fyuw/. American English "few" is not [fju:]. The "u" part isn't a single pure vowel. Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:00:48 -0500: Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net>: in sci.lang: >American English "few" is not [fju:]. The "u" part isn't a single pure >vowel. Of course not. It couldn't be, because the mere presence of [j] before it causes a gradual change. In fact, no vowel in any language is ever a single pure vowel, the speech organs never suddeny stand still, they are allways in motion. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:00:48 -0500: Harlan Messinger > <hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > In fact, no vowel in any language is ever a single pure vowel, the > speech organs never suddeny stand still, they are allways in motion. For heaven's sake: I *mean* in the sense that we use when we talk about the distinction between a vowel and a diphthong, as when we compare Spanish "e" and "o" as in "peso" to the sounds we use in English for, well, "e" and "o" in "peso". Tue, 29 Dec 2009 12:22:05 -0500: Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net>: in sci.lang: >> Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:00:48 -0500: Harlan Messinger >> <hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Spanish "e" and "o" as in "peso" to the sounds we use in English for, >well, "e" and "o" in "peso". Good point. There is a meaningful difference between [ej] and [e:], because of the distance between [e] and [i]. In the case of [uw] and [u:] however, that difference is so small that it becomes meaningless. The difference, if existent at all, drown in the measuring inaccuracies, personal variations, physical shape and size of speech organs. Just before I read your message (while filling the dish washer, then brushing my teeth), I already thought of taking the English word <day> as an example. That nicely connects to your "peso" example. <day> is \deI\ in most British-based dictionaries. In Trager-Smith, it's probably /dey/. Likewise <die> is \dAI\ or \daI\ for BrE, but probably /day/ in Trager-Smith. So we see a glide (semi-vowel) /y/ in Trager-Smith, and a vowel [I] for BrE. Now some questions: 1) Would you say this is just a description difference, a different choice of symbols for what's essentially the same thing? 2) Would you agree that in the words <day> and <die>, there isn't much difference between AmE and BrE? Intra-group variation is greater than inter-group? 3) Would you say the use of glide/semivowel symbols in Trager-Smith corresponds to an actual, physical, audible, measurable difference between AmE and BrE? 4) If like me, you answer the preceding questions with yes, yes and no, do you think the situation for words like <day> and <die> (with respect to symbols I and y/j) is notably different from that of words like <now> and <no> with regard to symbols u and w? (Note that <now> is \naU\ in my new Collins.) 5) If you answer 4) as "no", why is it that <new> and <fee> really MUST have a glide, and cannot have long vowels? Is there any real, meaningful difference between the two approaches? 6) If <too>/<two>, <due>/<dew>, <new> and <fee> MUST have glides, can some American speaker pronounce them for me with a glide, and without a glide but a longer vowel, so I can hear the difference and I can hear that the first sample sounds more like a normal American pronunciation than the second? 7) Would native speakers of American English be able to distinguish the pairs of question 6), and appreciate either of the two of each pair as more like normal American English than the other? SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Tue, 29 Dec 2009 12:22:05 -0500: Harlan Messinger > <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > So we see a glide (semi-vowel) /y/ in Trager-Smith, and a vowel [I] > for BrE. Now some questions: You cannot f.cking compare /.../ with [...]. Do you still not f.cking understand that you do not f.cking understand the concept of phoneme? > 1) Would you say this is just a description difference, a different > choice of symbols for what's essentially the same thing? [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > the pairs of question 6), and appreciate either of the two of each > pair as more like normal American English than the other? Tue, 29 Dec 2009 12:31:50 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >> <day> is \deI\ in most British-based dictionaries. In Trager-Smith, >> it's probably /dey/. Likewise <die> is \dAI\ or \daI\ for BrE, but [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >You cannot f.cking compare /.../ with [...]. Do you still not f.cking >understand that you do not f.cking understand the concept of phoneme? 1) Please answer the questions. Wonder if you will. 2) If you signal errors in what I post, please correct them. Should I have written /I/? Or /eI/? Or what? >> 1) Would you say this is just a description difference, a different >> choice of symbols for what's essentially the same thing? [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >> the pairs of question 6), and appreciate either of the two of each >> pair as more like normal American English than the other? Right. No answer. That's what I expected. Whenever I post questions with clear possible answers, you avoid them. Why? SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > 5) If you answer 4) as "no", why is it that <new> and <fee> really > MUST have a glide, and cannot have long vowels? Is there any real, > meaningful difference between the two approaches? If you were to pronounce "new" as though it were Dutch "noe", you would sound very, well, Dutch. The same goes for "too"/"toe", "moo"/"moe" and "boo"/"boe". It doesn't matter whether or not it's a word with [j] in front of the vowel. I'm not certain this is the most accurate description, but it seems to me it moves through "book" oo before ending on "boot" oo. > 6) If <too>/<two>, <due>/<dew>, <new> and <fee> MUST have glides, can > some American speaker pronounce them for me with a glide, and without [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the pairs of question 6), and appreciate either of the two of each > pair as more like normal American English than the other? Yes, we would be able to tell that you have a Dutch accent. Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:15:19 -0500: Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net>: in sci.lang: >> 5) If you answer 4) as "no", why is it that <new> and <fee> really >> MUST have a glide, and cannot have long vowels? Is there any real, >> meaningful difference between the two approaches? > >If you were to pronounce "new" as though it were Dutch "noe", you would >sound very, well, Dutch. There is a difference, yes, but it's not in "glide or no glide". It's in completely back vs. rather central, and/or in amount of rounding, and/or in tongue height. >> 7) Would native speakers of American English be able to distinguish >> the pairs of question 6), and appreciate either of the two of each >> pair as more like normal American English than the other? > >Yes, we would be able to tell that you have a Dutch accent. Incorrect. That's not what distinguishes a genuine American accent from a Dutch one (or German, for that matter). SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 00:03:22 +0100, Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.eu> wrote in <news:nh2lj5dhohl573uqn95b449decmfoe75sg@4ax.com> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:15:19 -0500: Harlan Messinger > <hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net>: in sci.lang: >>> 5) If you answer 4) as "no", why is it that <new> and <fee> really >>> MUST have a glide, and cannot have long vowels? Is there any real, >>> meaningful difference between the two approaches? >>If you were to pronounce "new" as though it were Dutch "noe", you would >>sound very, well, Dutch. > There is a difference, yes, but it's not in "glide or no glide". It's > in completely back vs. rather central, and/or in amount of rounding, > and/or in tongue height. Actually, it's in all of these. [...] Brian Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:12:30 -0500: "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu>: in sci.lang: >On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 00:03:22 +0100, Ruud Harmsen ><rh@rudhar.eu> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Actually, it's in all of these. Many dialects of Dutch also have glides, but not in /i/ and /u/. Neither has English, I insist. The Trager-Smith model was just taking an analogy too far, leading to results that have no base in reality. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com Wed, 30 Dec 2009 00:24:15 +0100: Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.eu>: in sci.lang: >Many dialects of Dutch also have glides, but not in /i/ and /u/. >Neither has English, I insist. > >The Trager-Smith model was just taking an analogy too far, leading to >results that have no base in reality. Is a Trager-Smith /uw/ one phoneme or a sequence or two? Same question for /iy/ of course. If either, why? SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Wed, 30 Dec 2009 00:24:15 +0100: Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.eu>: in > sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > If either, why? The 36 items consisting of the 9 vowels followed by nothing, w, y, or h (Gleason: H) are called "syllabic nuclei." Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:36:44 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >The 36 items consisting of the 9 vowels followed by nothing, w, y, or >h (Gleason: H) are called "syllabic nuclei." OK, so /uw/ together is one "syllabic nucleus", not two. Then I agree. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 00:24:15 +0100, Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.eu> wrote in <news:hp3lj59os2kfa1agschb77ju1mm0a0em9k@4ax.com> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english: [...] > Many dialects of Dutch also have glides, but not in /i/ > and /u/. Neither has English, I insist. My /u:/ (GOOSE vowel) has nearly as much change from beginning to end as my /əU/ (GOAT vowel), and the diagrams in Crystal's _Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language_ suggest that I'm not unusual. [...] Brian > Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:12:30 -0500: "Brian M. Scott" > <b.scott@csuohio.edu>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Many dialects of Dutch also have glides, but not in /i/ and /u/. > Neither has English, I insist. No glide in what most people mean by /i/ in English (namely [I]). That's why we need to write /iy/ for the off-glide cases. Guess what a recording of the English (well, American, at least) word "ye" would sound like, played backwards. Bart Mathias Wed, 30 Dec 2009 09:31:31 -1000: Bart Mathias <mathias@hawaii.edu>: in sci.lang: >Guess what a recording of the English (well, American, at least) word >"ye" would sound like, played backwards. Ee, of course. But that doesn't prove that the offglide is required for recognition. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Wed, 30 Dec 2009 09:31:31 -1000: Bart Mathias <math...@hawaii.edu>: in > sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Ee, of course. But that doesn't prove that the offglide is required > for recognition. It's required for not having a foreign accent. Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:33:36 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >> Wed, 30 Dec 2009 09:31:31 -1000: Bart Mathias <math...@hawaii.edu>: in >> sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >It's required for not having a foreign accent. I doubt it. I predict that if the last part of <sea>, <thee>, <free> etc. would be eletronically replaced with a copy of the same length part just before it (with a smooth level reduction and the end to avoid the sharp cut), no native speaker would even notice the difference. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com Ruud Harmsen wrote (31-12-2009 08:42): > Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:33:36 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" > <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > avoid the sharp cut), no native speaker would even notice the > difference. Notice how in dragging syllables in english you do oscillate quite a lot* compared to, say, what is usual in portuguese. (*) Tim Buckley's version of 'The Dolphins', for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndkeU_Tb9Ec Thu, 31 Dec 2009 12:20:45 +0000: António Marques <antonioprm@sapo.pt>: in sci.lang: >Notice how in dragging syllables in english you do oscillate quite a lot* >compared to, say, what is usual in portuguese. > >(*) Tim Buckley's version of 'The Dolphins', for example: >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndkeU_Tb9Ec Oscillate as in "vibrato"? I do hear that, but hardly any change in vowel quality. OK, sea at 0:58, but that's not something that would also occur in non-sung speech. Thank for the hint, BTW, I like such "simple" music, just a voice and guitar. Pity the guitar isn't always perfectly tuned, but you can't have it all. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:33:36 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >> Wed, 30 Dec 2009 09:31:31 -1000: Bart Mathias <math...@hawaii.edu>: in >> sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >It's required for not having a foreign accent. In almost all real-life situations, such an offglide would not even be detectable, because many words have a consonant after the /i/, and those that haven't are most often followed, in running natural speech, by a next word beginning with a consonant. Any offglide is then largely determined by the following consonant, because during the vowel, the speech organs are already preparing for doing what is needed for that consonant. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:33:36 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > In almost all real-life situations, such an offglide would not even be > detectable, because many words have a consonant after the /i/, and We're talking about "ye." (Or "be" or "sea" or "fee" or "gee" or "he" or "key" or "lee" or "me" or "knee" or "pea" or "tea" or "vee" or "we" or "zee" or "thee" or "she.") > those that haven't are most often followed, in running natural speech, > by a next word beginning with a consonant. Any offglide is then > largely determined by the following consonant, because during the > vowel, the speech organs are already preparing for doing what is > needed for that consonant. The tense vowels are not "pure" in closed syllables, either. Thu, 31 Dec 2009 04:33:22 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >The tense vowels are not "pure" in closed syllables, either. Nothing ever stands perfectly still in human speech. Speaking is constant motion. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Thu, 31 Dec 2009 04:33:22 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Nothing ever stands perfectly still in human speech. Speaking is > constant motion. Other European languages have "pure" -- or far, far less "impure" -- vowels in open or closed syllables. Thu, 31 Dec 2009 07:49:39 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >> Thu, 31 Dec 2009 04:33:22 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" >> <gramma...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Other European languages have "pure" -- or far, far less "impure" -- >vowels in open or closed syllables. So have some Dutch accents, for example in Hengelo and Almelo, which, as the joke has it, can be pronounced as Hengelooooo and Almelooooo. ([hEN@lo::], [Alm@lo::]). A long going dispute in nl.taal is though, that this would be physically impossible, or "not possible in Dutch". Said discussiants however refuse to use IPA or anything else that in reasonably unambiguous. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com Thu, 31 Dec 2009 19:30:50 +0100: Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.eu>: in sci.lang: >So have some Dutch accents, for example in Hengelo and Almelo, which, >as the joke has it, can be pronounced as Hengelooooo and Almelooooo. >([hEN@lo::], [Alm@lo::]). Examples, Herman Finkers, from Almelo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoUTbOMOen8 Klooster, weken, volkomen, (1:38): zo. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com Thu, 31 Dec 2009 19:30:50 +0100: Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.eu>: in sci.lang: >So have some Dutch accents, for example in Hengelo and Almelo, which, >as the joke has it, can be pronounced as Hengelooooo and Almelooooo. >([hEN@lo::], [Alm@lo::]). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHRoc29BR7g This is in Finkers' own dialect (as opposed to "Dutch with an accent"): Twents. Contains pure vowels (written <ee>) but also glides (<i'j>). SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Wed, 30 Dec 2009 09:31:31 -1000: Bart Mathias <mathias@hawaii.edu>: in > sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Ee, of course. But that doesn't prove that the offglide is required > for recognition. Well, I haven't actually tried the experiment since the days of easily reversible recording on wire recorders, but as I quite clearly recall [jIj] backwards sounded just like [jIj] ([I] is not quite right, and the pitch contour of the backward version was different from "ye." I also remember being puzzled that "ee" backwards also sounded like "ye.") Bart Mathias >> Wed, 30 Dec 2009 09:31:31 -1000: Bart Mathias <mathias@hawaii.edu>: in >> sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > pitch contour of the backward version was different from "ye." I also > remember being puzzled that "ee" backwards also sounded like "ye.") I was initially pleased to note that Peter also treated the vowel in question as [Ij], even though I thought [I] was rather too low. If it's really [jij] that would pretty much explain my bacwards "ee" [ij] sounding much like "ye." It seems very few languages (I know of only one) have distinctions like "ear"/"year," "east"/"yeast," "ooh"/"woo," etc. I convinced myself at an early age that English could do it because it had that extra set of highish vowels, but is it really just because [j] is a rare sound? Bart Mathias > >> Wed, 30 Dec 2009 09:31:31 -1000: Bart Mathias <math...@hawaii.edu>: in > >> sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > early age that English could do it because it had that extra set of > highish vowels, but is it really just because [j] is a rare sound? Any Semitic language (except Syriac) with i in the prefixed person- markers will contrast 'i- (1sg.) with yi- (3msg./pl.). (In Syriac, the 3m. prefix consonant is n-, which I think remains inexplicable; occasionally in Rabbinic Aramaic it's l-.) > Tue, 29 Dec 2009 12:22:05 -0500: Harlan Messinger > <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > -- > Ruud Harmsen,http://rudhar.com In my idiolect (Central California) the words that take a 'y' before 'u' sound very wrong to me and catch my attention instantly. Of course I explain them as the result of a change of the diphthong 'uw' to 'ew' after dentals which never happened in my dialect. For the record I phonemicize my English as having six short vowels (ignoring the effects caused by 'r') - pit, pet, pat, pot, put and putt - and eight "long" vowels (really diphthongs) - pea, pay, pie and poi ending high front and poo, poe, pow and pew ending high back. What happens before 'r' is something else again - I think I only have three short vowels before 'r' - far, for and fur - but I am not sure. There is too much of an observer effect for me to work this out by myself. My pronunciations of "mirror" usually excites laughter. Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:14:46 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com>: in sci.lang: >In my idiolect (Central California) the words that take a 'y' before >'u' sound very wrong to me and catch my attention instantly. Of >course I explain them as the result of a change of the diphthong 'uw' >to 'ew' after dentals which never happened in my dialect. I don't quite understand. Do you have " 'y' before 'u' " in words like <cute>? Does it sound very wrong to you when you such words yourself? Or do you mean it sounds wrong if somebody else saye <tune> and <new> as if they were <tyoon> and <nyoo>? SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com >> Tue, 29 Dec 2009 08:03:23 +0800: Robert Bannister >> <robban1@bigpond.com>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > American English "few" is not [fju:]. The "u" part isn't a single pure > vowel. So are you suggesting that almost every English vowel (American or otherwise) now requires half a dozen symbols? There are almost no pure vowels in English except in a very few dialects. SignatureRob Bannister Wed, 30 Dec 2009 07:32:59 +0800: Robert Bannister <robban1@bigpond.com>: in sci.lang: >> American English "few" is not [fju:]. The "u" part isn't a single pure >> vowel. > >So are you suggesting that almost every English vowel (American or >otherwise) now requires half a dozen symbols? There are almost no pure >vowels in English except in a very few dialects. There may be glides in the sounds, there aren't any in the phonemes. Full and fool are different, nobody denies that. So why should what is represented by <oo> here be two phonemes? (one of them a glide or not?). It just doesn't make sense. Glides could only make sense in phonetics, not in English phonology. Trager-Smith were simply plain wrong. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 00:54:52 +0100, Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.eu> wrote in <news:1g5lj5plccmi5kcrgus37u9r3fa02v307f@4ax.com> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english: [...] > Glides could only make sense in phonetics, not in English > phonology. [...] An analysis that allows /duw/ ~ /duwiN/, /sey/ ~ /seyiN/, and the like may have other problems, but it's made sense to a lot of native speakers. Brian > Wed, 30 Dec 2009 07:32:59 +0800: Robert Bannister > <robb...@bigpond.com>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Glides could only make sense in phonetics, not in English phonology. > Trager-Smith were simply plain wrong. Read the damn book. And stop saying that you understand the theory. Mon, 28 Dec 2009 11:44:10 +1100: Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp@retep>: in sci.lang: >> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 05:11:53 -0800 (PST), Andrew Usher >> <k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >The BrE "er" vowel, as in "first", is so close to the German "oe" that >few people would notice the difference. It seems close only to speakers of languages, like English, that don't have the real thing. To me (with Dutch as native tongue, which has <eu> with toughly the same value as long German <ö>), the difference is immediately obvious. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com >> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 05:11:53 -0800 (PST), Andrew Usher >> <k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > The BrE "er" vowel, as in "first", is so close to the German "oe" that > few people would notice the difference. That's rather like saying French u is close as dammit to the vowel in English "you". The German ö isn't even the same as French eu, let alone English er/ir/ur, although it's a lot closer. SignatureRob Bannister >> The French make it almost >> impossible to do useful things in an efficient manner. You are not >> allowed to create new words until they are approved by some commission >> years later (can't recall the name). > > Academie francaise. Sorry, I can't do the French characters. That name sounds familiar. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionnaire_de_l%27Acad%C3%A9mie_fran%C3% > A7aise > > This does have advantages. There are none. Keeping the language "pure" prevents wealth creation, delays new knowledge dissemination (students cannot learn from the official text books until the new terms are blessed), and other stuff if you bother to think about how work gets done. >For one thing, the Engs and the Americans > butcher the English language. Real English has a limited set of phonemes, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > prevent fad gibberish words like "bling-bling" from reaching the > dictionary. Whose dictionary? You might try to trace when CPU became an approved word, if it ever did, in France. I name my product; I also create new words to describe a lot of the behaviours of my new product. The product has to run in France. Do the company owners have to wait until all my new words have their French equivalent or should they be allowed to get the product running and let the political crap catch up 5 years later. > Don't even get me started on how "Ebonics" is being passed > off as English. > > The only real downside to the French Academy is that idiots who don't use > the language properly are called idiots. Is that so wrong? There are serious problems. You should think about them more carefully. /BAH > > The French make it almost > > impossible to do useful things in an efficient manner. You are not [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > pronunciations be used. They're completely ignorant that there often are > more than one dialect in a language; for example, Spanish. There is no real English. There never was and there never will be. All languages are an ongoing invention and a negotiation. > Another benefit is that the Engs (Engs live in Eng-land, right?) and > Americans use words incorrectly, and the incorrect usage becomes [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > war" means to speak against the war when the real meaning is to speak FOR > the war. There are no incorrect uses of words just popular, standardised and unpopular ways to apply language. As for your example - correct usage relies not on rules but on the communication of meaning. If we know what Archie Bunker MEANS then his language is effective. > Lastly, it is hoped that having a panel such as the French Academy would > prevent fad gibberish words like "bling-bling" from reaching the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The only real downside to the French Academy is that idiots who don't use > the language properly are called idiots. Is that so wrong? Actually idiots is perfectly accurate as it derives from the ancient Greek word which was used to denote people who are outside of the norms of the polis. The question then is; does the French Academy have the right to standardise the language? chazwin wrote (28-12-2009 10:36): > The question then is; does the French Academy have the right to > standardise the language? For all my often expressed dislike of it, the AF doesn't have a fourth of the pretensions you attribute to it. > chazwin wrote (28-12-2009 10:36): > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > For all my often expressed dislike of it, the AF doesn't have a fourth of > the pretensions you attribute to it. I don't think you have heard me attribute ANY pretensions to it. >> The French make it almost >> impossible to do useful things in an efficient manner. You are not [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > This does have advantages. For one thing, the Engs and the Americans > butcher the English language. Rewrite this as, "English speakers, like speakers of every language on the planet, do not speak their language in a single, uniform, permanent manner." > Real English has a limited set of phonemes, > but the Engs and the Americans have this nasty habit of using every > phoneme from every language. Huh? > And they're starting to insist that foreign > pronunciations be used. They're completely ignorant that there often are [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "correct" because they're so fond of "descriptive" dictionaries rather > than proscriptive dictionaries. Languages have been changing as long as there have been languages, which is a lot longer than there have been either prescriptive or descriptive dictionaries. Besides that, unless you imagine that speakers of *any* language are in the habit of going home every night and looking up all the words they plan to use the next day in the dictionary to make sure they won't use them incorrectly, you should be able to appreciate that dictionaries just don't have that much influence on usage. Speaking of using words incorrectly, may I suggest you look up the word "proscriptive" in your dictionary of choice? > It's very democratic, the idiots get to > decide what words mean. This is really funny. Even if a prescriptive dictionary lists specific meanings for a given word, how do you think that word got those meanings in the first place? Do you think the entire English vocabulary was *invented* by people who decided to decree, word by word, a language for people in England to speak? > It's one big Archie Bunker joke. For example, to > "protest" means to testify FOR something. In idiot speak, to "protest the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > dictionary. Don't even get me started on how "Ebonics" is being passed > off as English. How many French dictionaries do you think the AF has any control over? Hint: one of the many that are published, and I suspect not the one most often consulted by French speakers. > The only real downside to the French Academy is that idiots who don't use > the language properly are called idiots. Is that so wrong? Really? Who calls them that? Besides you, I mean? I wonder if you aren't being intentionally ironic and a troll. It's funny that someone would invent the word "Eng" and then complain about people doing what they want with the language. The anomaly is compounded by your use of "butcher" as a verb, your rendering of "It's very democratic, the idiots get to decide what words mean" as a single sentence, your use of "fad" as an adjective, along with your misuse of the word "proscriptive". You wouldn't be an idiot, by any chance? Not that I would call you that, but you do fit your own criteria for application of the term. On Dec 28, 3:40 pm, Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote: > I wonder if you aren't being intentionally ironic and a troll. It's > funny that someone would invent the word "Eng" and then complain about > people doing what they want with the language. The anomaly is compounded > by your use of "butcher" as a verb, What'swrong with butcher (v.)? It's been around since 1562 (M-W). > On Dec 28, 3:40 pm, Harlan Messinger > <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > What'swrong with butcher (v.)? It's been around since 1562 (M-W). Why are you asking *me* what's wrong with it? I'm turning Marvin's reasoning back on *him*. On Dec 28, 5:51 pm, Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote: > > On Dec 28, 3:40 pm, Harlan Messinger > > <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Why are you asking *me* what's wrong with it? I'm turning Marvin's > reasoning back on *him*. I didn't see that Marvin cited anything that could be parodied with "butcher (v.)." It's not even one of the Miss Fidditch shibboleths like "contact is not a verb." > On Dec 28, 5:51 pm, Harlan Messinger > <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > "butcher (v.)." It's not even one of the Miss Fidditch shibboleths > like "contact is not a verb." He is using the word "idiot" to describe anyone who uses anything in English in a manner different from however it was originally "meant" to be used (because he evidently thinks that all words came into English with an official prescribed meaning). Yet his own message contained several examples of just such "idiocy". On Dec 25, 6:51 pm, "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr." <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > The use of Latin in the sciences and other learned fields basically > > > ceased in the 18th and 19th centuries. I have long wondered why people [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > - Show quoted text - here's just one point in case. and there are a NewGroup full > The use of Latin in the sciences and other learned fields basically > ceased in the 18th and 19th centuries. I have long wondered why people > accepted the use of national languages exclusively in this endeavor > where international understanding is more imperative than any other. Languages were not really considered "national" before the 20th century. E.g. Galileo was the first scientist of lasting historical importance to publish in the vernacular, but this was not because Italian or Tuscan was a "national language:" it was just more convenient for Galileo's current needs. Cf. (a century later) Newton published in both English in 1671 (Fluxions) and 1704 (Optics) and in Latin in 1687 (Princip. Math.) Another century later Alexander von Humboldt chose to publish in French and Latin as well as his native German; another century Einstein published only in German. > It is true, that the use of Latin by 1700 had already passed almost > everywhere else, but its last remaining use should still have been > enough to support it, given that Latin was the one language that every > educated man in the Western world knew, and that Latin, having such a > long tradition of use, was at least suitable for scientific and > technical purposes as any other language at the time. The suitability of Latin to publish genuinely new information is open to challenge. I would suggest Linnaeus's plant catalogue (1753-1779) was the last great attempt to use Latin as the international language of science. He nevertheless had to coin a lot of new words -- and the Linnean System of nomenclature worked in any language, thus did not require Latin for its adoption or use. 20th century scholar Derek de Solla Price was the first to notice the growth pattern of modern science (since Galileo or Newton) -- a tenfold growth in the volume of new knowledge published in each half century. This means the volume of information grew a millionfold in 300 years. During this period investigators have used four successive "languages of science," Latin, French, German and English. I believe the character of languages had less to do with this change than the contingencies of politics, viz. unique features of the German academic system of the 19th century and the American research machine of the 20th. Non-scientists tried to go their own way by maintaining Latin as the core of higher education (e.g. prerequisite for admission to Oxbridge up to about 1960) and from about 1800 adding Greek (which among late Victorians displaced Latin as the preferred language for show-off quotations) and adding to the "research" curriculum a whole lot of Middle Eastern languages reconstructed from writing (also handy for Biblical scholarship, a hot topic i the 19th century) not to mention Persian, Sanskrit, and Chinese and Japanese studies besides. This offered a curriculum that appeared competitive with hot science in the Victorian period -- but which failed to transform the whole world the way science successfully did: and never supported any scholarly lingua franca. SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) > > The use of Latin in the sciences and other learned fields basically > > ceased in the 18th and 19th centuries. I have long wondered why people [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > not because Italian or Tuscan was a "national language:" it > was just more convenient for Galileo's current needs. Why was it, by the way? > Cf. (a century later) Newton published in both English in > 1671 (Fluxions) and 1704 (Optics) and in Latin in 1687 > (Princip. Math.) Another century later Alexander von Humboldt > chose to publish in French and Latin as well as his native > German; another century Einstein published only in German. Note also that the former importance of Latin is shown by the fact that Newton's Optics, like Galileo's and Descartes' vernacular works, was translated into Latin almost immediately. > The suitability of Latin to publish genuinely new information is > open to challenge. I would suggest Linnaeus's plant catalogue [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > nomenclature worked in any language, thus did not require > Latin for its adoption or use. Linnaeus's work was, of course, a complete success. It's no great surprise that, in any language, new words need to be made in many cases to express new concepts. > 20th century scholar Derek de Solla Price was the first to > notice the growth pattern of modern science (since Galileo > or Newton) -- a tenfold growth in the volume of new knowledge > published in each half century. This means the volume of > information grew a millionfold in 300 years. Is this perhaps a slight exaggeration? After all, scientists today publish almost everything they do, unlike earlier times when they did not need to, because their careers didn't depend on it and there was no tradition of doing so. I don't think it can be said that the volume of useful knowledge has increased that rapidly. > During this period > investigators have used four successive "languages of science," [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > academic system of the 19th century and the American > research machine of the 20th. Well French and German were never truly international languages, in which scientists the world over wrote their discoveries in. But Latin did have that status once, and English does today. The issue of where the largest volume of research was is different; and that was the reason for the apparent dominance of German in the 19th and early 20th century. > Non-scientists tried to go their own way by maintaining > Latin as the core of higher education (e.g. prerequisite [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > transform the whole world the way science successfully > did: and never supported any scholarly lingua franca. Right, and this is where Latin gained its horrible reputation - generations of students were forced to learn Latin as a dead language, by dubious educational methods that gave few students real fluency, all to satisfy the snob-appeal of a 'classical' education. Andrew Usher > > 20th century scholar Derek de Solla Price was the first to > > notice the growth pattern of modern science (since Galileo [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > no tradition of doing so. I don't think it can be said that the volume > of useful knowledge has increased that rapidly. Price dealt with this. We have no agreed standards for "usefulness." Price simply measured the volume of published knowledge (his first sample being pages published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 166? to 1960.) The figure of tenfold growth in each of six successive half centuries seems to have been confirmed several times (and we could by now count at least 350 years.) Price's practical point is that exponential growth never goes on for ever, as observed in nature: meaning we may live into the period when something happens to this growth pattern in total knowledge. See interesting discussion in his Science Since Babylon (1970, 1975) and Little Science, Big Science (1986, 1990) both highly recommended. SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) > Price dealt with this. We have no agreed standards for "usefulness." Can you provide the reference, or should I find it myself? > Price simply measured the volume of published knowledge (his first > sample being pages published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society > of London 166? to 1960.) OK, so he's measuring journals. Well, in the 17th century, most new scientific knowledge was not published in journals. It took quite some time before it became the universal standard that new discoveries should be put into journals. > The figure of tenfold growth in each of six > successive half centuries seems to have been confirmed several > times (and we could by now count at least 350 years.) Well that's a millionfold total. There certainly hasn't been a millionfold growth in the number of scientists (there are probably not more than a million in the world today). > Price's practical point is that exponential growth never goes on > for ever, as observed in nature: meaning we may live into the > period when something happens to this growth pattern in total > knowledge. Right, no exponential growth continues forever, except maybe that of the universe, though some doubts have been raised about that ( http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro/browse_thread/thread/ef2e19c198e428c1# ). There sure seems to be a lot of people that don't get it when applied to various fields such as demographics, economics, or technology, though. > See interesting discussion in his Science Since > Babylon (1970, 1975) and Little Science, Big Science (1986, 1990) > both highly recommended. I shall look. Andrew Usher > The use of Latin in the sciences and other learned fields basically > ceased in the 18th and 19th centuries. I have long wondered why people [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > And so, some explanations suggest themselves. [snip explanations] I think a major reason was the great expansion in scientific terminology. Many new words were being coined to express new concepts. Classical Latin just didn't have the vocabulary. Jim Deutch (JimboCat) -- "What is the Latin word for 'quark', anyway?" JimboCat wrote (24-12-2009 16:58): > I think a major reason was the great expansion in scientific > terminology. Many new words were being coined to express new concepts. > Classical Latin just didn't have the vocabulary. Erm.... neither did any other language, hence '[m]any new words were being coined'. The invention of the printing press, movable type, had been in place for a couple hundred years so that more people could participate in the vernacular. Scholarship was no longer the realm of the Latin affluent. > On Dec 24, 8:57 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:> The use of Latin in the sciences and other learned fields basically > > ceased in the 18th and 19th centuries. I have long wondered why people [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > terminology. Many new words were being coined to express new concepts. > Classical Latin just didn't have the vocabulary. You are speaking from pure ignorance. Millions of plants and animals are all called by Latin names. Many words are formed from Ancient Greek and Latin to avoid the limited vocab and the parochility of native European languages. Even modern words life television are formed of greek and latin. > Jim Deutch (JimboCat) > -- > "What is the Latin word for 'quark', anyway?" Its actually curd cheese, original etymology unknown. > > On Dec 24, 8:57 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:> > > > The use of Latin in the sciences and other learned fields basically > > > ceased in the 18th and 19th centuries. I have long wondered why people [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > limited vocab and the parochility of native European languages. > Even modern words life television are formed of greek and latin. The Classical languages have an immense mythological vocabulary to draw upon -- they easily turn names of divinities into common nouns and adjectives (and vice versa). I'm not going to look it up now, but I wouldn't be surprised if the name of the element niobium was coined by someone familiar with the myth of Niobe. > > Jim Deutch (JimboCat) > > -- > > "What is the Latin word for 'quark', anyway?" > > Its actually curd cheese, original etymology unknown.- > > > On Dec 24, 8:57 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:> > > > > The use of Latin in the sciences and other learned fields basically [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > I wouldn't be surprised if the name of the element niobium was coined > by someone familiar with the myth of Niobe. yes, http://www.innvista.com/science/chemistry/elements/etymolo.htm Niobium Nb For Niobe in Greek mythology > > > Jim Deutch (JimboCat) > > > -- > > > "What is the Latin word for 'quark', anyway?" > > > Its actually curd cheese, original etymology unknown. > > The Classical languages have an immense mythological vocabulary to > > draw upon -- they easily turn names of divinities into common nouns [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Niobium Nb For Niobe in Greek mythology That doesn't exactly explain _why_ the name was chosen, does it. > > > The Classical languages have an immense mythological vocabulary to > > > draw upon -- they easily turn names of divinities into common nouns [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > That doesn't exactly explain _why_ the name was chosen, does it. here's some more detail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niobium Niobium has physical and chemical properties similar to those of the element tantalum, and the two are therefore difficult to distinguish. The English chemist Charles Hatchett reported a new element similar to tantalum in 1801, and named it columbium. In 1809, the English chemist William Hyde Wollaston wrongly concluded that tantalum and columbium were identical. The German chemist Heinrich Rose determined in 1846 that tantalum ores contain a second element, which he named niobium. In 1864 and 1865, a series of scientific findings clarified that niobium and columbium were the same element (as distinguished from tantalum), and for a century both names were used interchangeably. The name of the element was officially adopted as niobium in 1949. > > > > The Classical languages have an immense mythological vocabulary to > > > > draw upon -- they easily turn names of divinities into common nouns [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > tantalum), and for a century both names were used interchangeably. The > name of the element was officially adopted as niobium in 1949. here's the "why", in the first sentence of the same article: Niobium (pronounced /naɪˈoʊbiəm/ nye-OH-bee-əm) (Greek mythology: Niobe, daughter of Tantalus), or columbium (/kəˈlʌmbiəm/ kə-LUM-bee- əm), is the chemical element with the symbol Nb and the atomic number 41 > > > The Classical languages have an immense mythological vocabulary to > > > draw upon -- they easily turn names of divinities into common nouns [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > That doesn't exactly explain _why_ the name was chosen, does it. more on the "why" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tantalum Tantalum was discovered in Sweden in 1802 by Anders Ekeberg. One year earlier, Charles Hatchett had discovered the element columbium.[2] In 1809, the English chemist William Hyde Wollaston compared the oxides derived from both columbium—columbite, with a density 5.918 g/cm3, and tantalum—tantalite, with a density 7.935 g/cm3, and concluded that the two oxides, despite their difference in measured density, were identical. He decided to keep the name tantalum.[3] After Friedrich Wöhler confirmed these results, it was thought that columbium and tantalum were the same element. This conclusion was disputed in 1846 by the German chemist Heinrich Rose, who argued that there were two additional elements in the tantalite sample, and he named them after the children of Tantalus: niobium (from Niobe, the goddess of tears), and pelopium (from Pelops).[4][5] The supposed element "pelopium" was later identified as a mixture of tantalum and niobium, and it was found that the niobium was identical to the columbium already discovered in 1801 by Hattchet. > > > > The Classical languages have an immense mythological vocabulary to > > > > draw upon -- they easily turn names of divinities into common nouns [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > found that the niobium was identical to the columbium already > discovered in 1801 by Hattchet. ... The name tantalum was derived from the name of the mythological Tantalus, the father of Niobe in Greek mythology. In the story, he had been punished after death by being condemned to stand knee-deep in water with perfect fruit growing above his head, both of which eternally tantalized him. (If he bent to drink the water, it drained below the level he could reach, and if he reached for the fruit, the branches moved out of his grasp.)[12] Ekeberg wrote "This metal I call tantalum … partly in allusion to its incapacity, when immersed in acid, to absorb any and be saturated."[13] 13. Greenwood, Norman N.; Earnshaw, A. (1997), Chemistry of the Elements (2nd ed.), Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, p. 1138, ISBN 0-7506-3365-4 > The name tantalum was derived from the name of the mythological > Tantalus, the father of Niobe in Greek mythology. In the story, he had [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Elements (2nd ed.), Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, p. 1138, ISBN > 0-7506-3365-4- See, physicists? A new word invented on the basis of the mythological properties of the character it is named for. >> The name tantalum was derived from the name of the mythological >> Tantalus, the father of Niobe in Greek mythology. In the story, he had [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > See, physicists? A new word invented on the basis of the mythological > properties of the character it is named for. The element mercury was named such based on the fleetness of the god Mercury centuries before tantalum was discovered. On Dec 27, 10:48 am, Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote: > >> The name tantalum was derived from the name of the mythological > >> Tantalus, the father of Niobe in Greek mythology. In the story, he had [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > The element mercury was named such based on the fleetness of the god > Mercury centuries before tantalum was discovered. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(element) Hg is the modern chemical symbol for mercury. It comes from hydrargyrum, a Latinized form of the Greek word Ύδραργυρος (hydrargyros), which is a compound word meaning "water" and "silver" -- since it is liquid, like water, and yet has a silvery metallic sheen. The element was named after the Roman god Mercury, known for speed and mobility. It is associated with the planet Mercury; the astrological symbol for the planet is also one of the alchemical symbols for the metal. Mercury is the only metal for which the alchemical planetary name became the common name. >>> The name tantalum was derived from the name of the mythological >>> Tantalus, the father of Niobe in Greek mythology. In the story, he had [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > The element mercury was named such based on the fleetness of the god > Mercury centuries before tantalum was discovered. So why did people insist on calling it "quicksilver" until fairly recently? SignatureRob Bannister > >>> The name tantalum was derived from the name of the mythological > >>> Tantalus, the father of Niobe in Greek mythology. In the story, he had [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > So why did people insist on calling it "quicksilver" until fairly recently? becaue that is its popular name. > -- > > Rob Bannister > > >>> The name tantalum was derived from the name of the mythological > > >>> Tantalus, the father of Niobe in Greek mythology. In the story, he had [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > - Show quoted text - and ...a deversion from your form? would a SIGHT !....? and I as a Christian woman will share with YOU? and then they woukd kill me in Islam and wic RUTH? huh! >>>> The name tantalum was derived from the name of the mythological >>>> Tantalus, the father of Niobe in Greek mythology. In the story, he had [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > So why did people insist on calling it "quicksilver" until fairly recently? That seems a strange question. Surely you're familiar with synonyms. >>>>> The name tantalum was derived from the name of the mythological >>>>> Tantalus, the father of Niobe in Greek mythology. In the story, he had [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > That seems a strange question. Surely you're familiar with synonyms. Because of the claim that the element was name Mercury centuries ago. Now, I presume this is true - dictionaries don't make it clear whether the 14th century word applies to the element or the god - but "quicksilver" is older. SignatureRob Bannister >>>>>> The name tantalum was derived from the name of the mythological >>>>>> Tantalus, the father of Niobe in Greek mythology. In the story, he [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Because of the claim that the element was name Mercury centuries ago. Why would you think that if two words are synonyms, it's unlikely that they have both existed for centuries? > Now, I presume this is true - dictionaries don't make it clear whether > the 14th century word applies to the element or the god It was the name of the god before there was an English language. Chaucer used it for the metal around 1395, as the OED makes crystal clear. >- but > "quicksilver" is older. Neither the word "quicksilver" nor the age of either name for the metal has anything to do with the remark I was making to Peter. >> See, physicists? A new word invented on the basis of the mythological >> properties of the character it is named for. > > The element mercury was named such based on the fleetness of the god > Mercury centuries before tantalum was discovered. The planet Mercury provides a better example. The metal has had several names. Should I mention venereal diseases? SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. > >> See, physicists? A new word invented on the basis of the mythological > >> properties of the character it is named for. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Should I mention venereal diseases? The morphology there is entirely too complicated for our Latinless physicists ... I was trying to keep the examples to something they might have heard of. >>>> See, physicists? A new word invented on the basis of the mythological >>>> properties of the character it is named for. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > physicists ... I was trying to keep the examples to something they > might have heard of. Your snot doesn't become you. Before you continue, you should check out the science requirements of a physics degree. /BAH > >>>> See, physicists? A new word invented on the basis of the mythological > >>>> properties of the character it is named for. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > /BAH- Are you a physicist, humbug? Clearly they don't include the science of etymology. >>>>>> See, physicists? A new word invented on the basis of the mythological >>>>>> properties of the character it is named for. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Are you a physicist, humbug? No. JMF's training was in physics. > Clearly they don't include the science of > etymology. Clearly? Where did you get your data? /BAH > >>>>>> See, physicists? A new word invented on the basis of the mythological > >>>>>> properties of the character it is named for. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > /BAH- The only data I have about the three of you are in this very thread. I see that the one of you called "BAH" is not acquainted with the science of etymology. (JMF and CIV are apparently unable to speak for themselves.) >>>>>>>> See, physicists? A new word invented on the basis of the mythological >>>>>>>> properties of the character it is named for. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > science of etymology. (JMF and CIV are apparently unable to speak for > themselves.) Etymology is a science? Are you talking about the study of insects now? FYI, the people in my area of work are more passionate about language than you guys are. /BAH jmfbahciv (in sci.lang): > Etymology is a science? Are you talking about the study of insects now? Entomology? Joachim > >>>>>>>> See, physicists? A new word invented on the basis of the mythological > >>>>>>>> properties of the character it is named for. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Etymology is a science? Are you talking about the study of insects now? If you don't even know the word "etymology," perhaps you need to do some _very_ basic reading. > FYI, the people in my area of work are more passionate about language > than you guys are. Bah, indeed. What do you mean by "passionate"? Emotionally invested, clinging to childhood myth rather than fact? Whatever your "line of work" may be, are you "passionate" about the object of study, or _dis_passionate? > /BAH- >>>>>>>>>> See, physicists? A new word invented on the basis of the mythological >>>>>>>>>> properties of the character it is named for. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > If you don't even know the word "etymology," perhaps you need to do > some _very_ basic reading. Oh, man. Whoosh. I don't consider the study of words and their origins a science. >> FYI, the people in my area of work are more passionate about language >> than you guys are. > > Bah, indeed. What do you mean by "passionate"? Emotionally invested, > clinging to childhood myth rather than fact? sigh! Another snot. > Whatever your "line of work" may be, are you "passionate" about the > object of study, or _dis_passionate? /BAH > >>>>>>>>>> See, physicists? A new word invented on the basis of the mythological > >>>>>>>>>> properties of the character it is named for. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Oh, man. Whoosh. I don't consider the study of words and their > origins a science. I thought you might be trying to hurl an insult. Why not? > >> FYI, the people in my area of work are more passionate about language > >> than you guys are. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > sigh! Another snot. So you have no answer? > > Whatever your "line of work" may be, are you "passionate" about the > > object of study, or _dis_passionate? Cat got your tongue? >>> See, physicists? A new word invented on the basis of the mythological >>> properties of the character it is named for. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Should I mention venereal diseases? I don't know that either of those examples would be of interest to physicists in particular, as seemed to be Peter's concern, and I don't see how the existence of other names for the metal called "mercury" alters the significance of *that* name in the context in which I mentioned it. > > > On Dec 24, 8:57 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:> > > > > The use of Latin in the sciences and other learned fields basically [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > I wouldn't be surprised if the name of the element niobium was coined > by someone familiar with the myth of Niobe. Possibly true. But the vast majority of scientific names derived from ancient languages are derived from completely mundane items. e.g Dino- saur is terrible lizard. Tyrranosaurus Rex is tyrrant-lizard king, psychology is "soul"-words (study of ), biology is life -study, etc.. > > > Jim Deutch (JimboCat) > > > -- > > > "What is the Latin word for 'quark', anyway?" > > > Its actually curd cheese, original etymology unknown.- On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:14:19 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in <news:b1bdd2f6-cd1c-4566-9a5b-ba3298ec0f9d@n38g2000yqf.googlegroups.com> in sci.physics,sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.philosophy: [...] > I'm not going to look it up now, but I wouldn't be > surprised if the name of the element niobium was coined > by someone familiar with the myth of Niobe. It was. And it's no accident that niobium and tantalum have very similar properties (and are in fact vertically adjacent in the periodic table). Brian > The use of Latin in the sciences and other learned fields basically > ceased in the 18th and 19th centuries. I have long wondered why people > accepted the use of national languages exclusively in this endeavor > where international understanding is more imperative than any other. Oh, come on, you're claiming there's no nationalism in the sciences? The British Imperial system of units dominated for a long time for practical reasons; those who bought materials for scientific purposes specified quantities in pints, gallons, and cubic feet, hence suppliers stored and packaged them so. That spread to military and industrial usage as well, which is why a U. S. standard pallet at 40 x 48 inches, out of all the other "standard" pallets used worldwide, wastes the least space in a worldwide standard ISO shipping container in these days of otherwise universal metrification. > It is true, that the use of Latin by 1700 had already passed almost > everywhere else, but its last remaining use should still have been > enough to support it, given that Latin was the one language that every > educated man in the Western world knew, and that Latin, having such a > long tradition of use, was at least suitable for scientific and > technical purposes as any other language at the time. That's because the texts the students were learning from were written by people educated in Catholic Church-run schools; you learn the language to read the text, meaning you keep your notes in that as well. However, you write down military applications in your native language. > And so, some explanations suggest themselves. The first is that the > predominant advocates and defenders of Latin, from the Renaissance to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > have started writing in French, and if they had wanted to oppose them, > they should have re-emphasised the role of Latin. Nonsense; when the English and German courts started emulating the manners and dress of the French court, they did not start speaking French. Why would they? > Now, of course, I can't propose the revival of Latin for these > purposes: English has virtually replaced it as the international > scientific language. But it look a long time during which dealing with > many different languages was a considerable problem, and it seems as > though this should have been avoided. Speaking of metrification, how soon do you think all goods will be shipped in multiples of li and fenin "new standard" containers, measured in easily remembered whole numbers of li? Yesterday morning I turned on the TV and accidentally selected Nickelodeon, which was running a kids' program called "Ni Hao, Kai Lan" which teaches a different Chinese word each episode. How do you say "get offa my lawn" in Chinese? Oh, wait, when China sells all those Fed bonds, it won't be my lawn... Mark L. Fergerson > The British Imperial system of units dominated for a long time for > practical reasons; those who bought materials for scientific purposes > specified quantities in pints, gallons, and cubic feet, hence > suppliers stored and packaged them so. This appears untrue: no evidence suggests international shippers of chemicals, metals etc. adopted British measures of length, weight, volume etc. (The French metric system was adopted in Germany from the 1840s and German scientific suppliers dominated the market from the 1880s.) > . . . which is why a U. S. standard pallet at 40 x > 48 inches, out of all the other "standard" pallets used worldwide This ignores the actual evolution of international commercial standards (best modeled by the current shipping container: this is not the optimum by any abstract standard: but represented the cheapest approximation to existing vehicle dimensions, crane carrying capacity etc.) > > It is true, that the use of Latin by 1700 had already passed almost > > everywhere else, but its last remaining use should still have been > > enough to support it, given that Latin was the one language . . . > That's because the texts the students were learning from were > written by people educated in Catholic Church-run schools; you learn > the language to read the text, meaning you keep your notes in that as > well. However, you write down military applications in your native > language. 1. This is prima facie untrue for the UK where Catholic schools were outlawed until the 1830s. 2. No evidence appears to suggest that Catholic school students in Germany, France, Austria etc., kept their personal notes in Latin. Some individuals did, others did not, and Latin was not thus prescribed by any rule. 3. Military records were not necessarily kept in a language governed by school rules. Many Russian and German archives appear to have been maintained in French, perhaps because this language was standardized earlier than Russian and German. > > . . . blame it on the French: they abandoned Latin earlier than anyone > > else, and are well-known to have an inflated view of the greatness of > > their own language. But that does not seem to explain how it happened > > everywhere else: had they wanted to emulate the French, they would > > have started writing in French, and if they had wanted to oppose them, > > they should have re-emphasised the role of Latin. > Nonsense; when the English and German courts started emulating the > manners and dress of the French court, they did not start speaking > French. Why would they? Problems: 1. English and German courts hardly ever "emulated" French courts. They usually did so only at the behest of individual monarchs raised in French environments (e.g. Charles II of England.) 2. But French was 1800-1950 "the language of diplomacy" viz. the language in which ambassadors and staffs interacted world-wide (and diplomatic protocol was modeled on French style: but this continued just the same whether France was a monarchy or a republic.) SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) On Dec 24, 8:05 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote: > Nonsense; when the English and German courts started emulating the > manners and dress of the French court, they did not start speaking > French. Why would they? Norman French was spoken in English courts until at least the 16th century, for example in exchanges between judges and law sergeants, and in dispensing judgements. In fact, according to http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~cpercy/courses/6361Heys.htm French was the official language of English courts until 1731! Cheers John Ramsden > On Dec 24, 8:05 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 16th century, for example in exchanges between judges and law > sergeants, and in dispensing judgements. the case of England is different, as it was originally a Norman dynasty (starting with William the Conqueror) that ruled England for a while. > In fact, according to > http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~cpercy/courses/6361Heys.htm > French was the official language of English courts until 1731! yes, I had quoted that website in a different thread in sci.lang > Cheers > > John Ramsden > The use of Latin in the sciences and other learned fields basically > ceased in the 18th and 19th centuries. I have long wondered why people > accepted the use of national languages exclusively in this endeavor > where international understanding is more imperative than any other. [snip] Any *single* language (e.g., air traffic control) is potentially suitable. Said language should be displayable without crap hanging above or below the line. Said language should encode in no more than a ten-segment display. Said language should have a sufficently large dictionary to accurately and precisely describe without ambiguity. NO GENDER for nouns, no incorporated social commentary (German "du," Spanish "tu," all of Japanese). Language should not be constructed as a privilege. Latin was the language of Rome. Rome was widespread. Subjugated poeples seek to become their conquerors. Mexico speaks Spanish, Brazil speaks Portugues; Blacks take on the Arabic names and religion of their original vendors. What remains other than English? Latin was used as scholarly language because it excluded the uninitiated and gave the Church a leg up on censuring unacceptable thoughts. French was used for diplomacy because nothing could be said without ambiguity. Languages like Hawaiian or Inuit are poor jokes. While nearly the whole world was wallowing in royal edicts, the English Court spoke French. The vulgar people of England stripped their language of all the elegant goo and dribble infesting written and spoken language. Even an idiot can misspeak and write English, as amply evidenced. The economic, political, technological, and scientific collapse of America has opened the window to Mandarin Chinese hegemony, and more's the pity. One could only do worse with purposely badly grammared Klingon. SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm > The use of Latin in the sciences and other learned fields basically > ceased in the 18th and 19th centuries. I have long wondered why people [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > long tradition of use, was at least suitable for scientific and > technical purposes as any other language at the time. What a bizarre scattershot of newsgroups. The dissertation of the American Egyptologist James Henry Breasted, done ca. 1895 for Adolf Erman in Berlin, was one of the last dissertations ever written in Latin. > The use of Latin in the sciences and other learned fields basically > ceased in the 18th and 19th centuries. I have long wondered why people [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > many different languages was a considerable problem, and it seems as > though this should have been avoided. Latin was quite naturally the language of the textbooks, of study, and of examination in the universities of Europe from about 1100 onwards, because these universities were founded by the Church with the purpose of training men for the priesthood. But later secular universities (one of the earliest of which was Edinburgh, founded by the Town Council in 1583) followed the tradition of the older ones. Town Council minutes of the early 1600's lament the poor standard of Latin scholarship among the student body, and propose various measures to improve it. While the use of Latin lasted, Europe enjoyed a continent-wide interchangeability of university staff and students, especially since the same curriculum was followed almost everywhere. Several famous academics were students in different countries for different years of their undergraduate careers. The first professor in Europe to lecture in the vernacular, instead of in Latin, was Francis Hutcheson, the Professor of Moral Philosophy at Glasgow, some time in the early 1730's. His motivation appears to have been that the use of Latin constrained the patterns of his students' thinking, and that the vernacular would let them think outside this Latin-imposed box. One author attributes the start of the Scottish Enlightenment to exactly this newly-provided facility in forming and expressing fresh ideas. Whatever the original reason, the abandonment of Latin then proceeded rapidly through Europe, and was complete within barely a lifetime. Karl Friedrich Gauss's doctoral thesis "Disquisitiones Arithmeticae" of 1797 was the last major scholarly work to be published in Latin. I think that this adoption of national languages had more to do with rising national pride than with any consensus about the shortcomings of Latin. -- >> The use of Latin in the sciences and other learned fields basically >> ceased in the 18th and 19th centuries. I have long wondered why [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > of in Latin, was Francis Hutcheson, the Professor of Moral Philosophy > at Glasgow, some time in the early 1730's. I doubt if he was the first in Europe. Christian Thomasius started lecturing in German instead of Latin in 1687. > His motivation appears to have been that the use of Latin constrained > the patterns of his students' thinking, and that the vernacular [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > rising national pride than with any consensus about the shortcomings > of Latin. -- SignatureJames > Gauss's doctoral thesis "Disquisitiones Arithmeticae" > of 1797 was the last major scholarly work to be > published in Latin. Who are you to decide what a "major scholarly work" is? Most of us happen to think that Wilhelm Gesenius's *Thesaurus Linguae Phoeniciae* (1837) is a major scholarly work (and it treats not just the Phoenician language, but all that was known of Semitic epigraphy at the time.) (And don't bother looking at it in google books; they don't bother to unfold the plates before they photograph them, so the file is useless.) > > Gauss's doctoral thesis "Disquisitiones Arithmeticae" > > of 1797 was the last major scholarly work to be > > published in Latin. > > Who are you to decide what a "major scholarly work" is? I'm not sure what he means. Anyway, he's made silly errors - DA wasn't Gauss's dissertation, and Gauss continued to publish his major papers in Latin until 1832. > Most of us happen to think that Wilhelm Gesenius's *Thesaurus Linguae > Phoeniciae* (1837) is a major scholarly work (and it treats not just > the Phoenician language, but all that was known of Semitic epigraphy > at the time.) (And don't bother looking at it in google books; they > don't bother to unfold the plates before they photograph them, so the > file is useless.) I'll take your word for it. Andrew Usher > > Gauss's doctoral thesis "Disquisitiones Arithmeticae" > > of 1797 was the last major scholarly work to be [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > don't bother to unfold the plates before they photograph them, so the > file is useless.) I agree, and it seems people can't see the forest for the trees. > I think that this adoption of national languages had > more to do with rising national pride than with any > consensus about the shortcomings of Latin. This is kind of my point. My question was why this happened when one would think that the Enlightenment would lead to more internationalism among scholars - yet all the major Enlightenment figures wrote in their vernacular. Andrew Usher >> I think that this adoption of national languages had >> more to do with rising national pride than with any [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > among scholars - yet all the major Enlightenment figures wrote in > their vernacular. Moreover, particularly in Germany, many of them translated their names into Latin or Greek. SignatureRob Bannister > >> I think that this adoption of national languages had > >> more to do with rising national pride than with any [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Moreover, particularly in Germany, many of them translated their names > into Latin or Greek. but the German Romantics were for the vernacular (German) and were very anti-Latin, and eventually a language reform movement started in Germany removing many Latin or Romance based words, and Germanizing scientific terminology. > -- > > Rob Bannister >>>> I think that this adoption of national languages had >>>> more to do with rising national pride than with any [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Germany removing many Latin or Romance based words, and Germanizing > scientific terminology. At least a century later. Most things happened later in Germany because the Thirty Years War and it accompanying devastation set the area back so much. SignatureRob Bannister > >>>> I think that this adoption of national languages had > >>>> more to do with rising national pride than with any [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > the Thirty Years War and it accompanying devastation set the area back > so much. yes. > -- > > Rob Bannister > The use of Latin in the sciences and other learned fields basically > ceased in the 18th and 19th centuries. I have long wondered why people [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > many different languages was a considerable problem, and it seems as > though this should have been avoided. The third explanation is that English is more versatile. IOW, people can make up new words easily. I did this as part of my job. /BAH > > The use of Latin in the sciences and other learned fields basically > > ceased in the 18th and 19th centuries. I have long wondered why people [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > people can make up new words easily. I did this as part of > my job. I take it you don't know Arabic? Which newsgroup are you in? > > The third explanation is that English is more versatile. IOW, > > people can make up new words easily. I did this as part of > > my job. > > I take it you don't know Arabic? Her 'explanation', if true, is just a variant of my first i.e. the classicists that control Latin insist on purity over accepting new words like any living language must. Andrew Usher > > > The third explanation is that English is more versatile. IOW, > > > people can make up new words easily. I did this as part of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Andrew Usher I read that the Latin of the Vatican continuously makes up new words, as well as the Latin used for taxonomy. ditto for Modern Standard Arabic, which is very closely based on Classical Arabic, and spoken Arabic is quite divergent from it. there is also Neo-Syriac. Israeli Hebrew is rather more deviant from Biblical Hebrew though. why isn't this cross-posted to a medical or biological NG? Latin based coinages are AFAIK more alive in those fields. philosophy tends, AFAIK towards german. particle physics is inovative: quark (a fundamental particle, IIRC from a type of german cheese, but based on a miss- quotation from James Joyce) and "color" and "flavor",(characteristics of quarks, it is said that inspired by ice-cream types that came in different colors and flavors while the theoretician was musing over the theory). ironically, the man responsible for these coinages is seriously interested in linguistics. > > > > The third explanation is that English is more versatile. IOW, > > > > people can make up new words easily. I did this as part of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I read that the Latin of the Vatican continuously makes up new words, There's a Latin radio station in Finland. > as well as the Latin used for taxonomy. ditto for Modern Standard > Arabic, which is very closely based on Classical Arabic, and spoken > Arabic is quite divergent from it. there is also Neo-Syriac. Israeli > Hebrew is rather more deviant from Biblical Hebrew though. What does Neo-Syriac (or any form of Modern Aramaic) have to do with the creation of modern scientific vocabulary? Israeli scholars do publish in Hebrew, but they realize that if they're going to get an international hearing, they have to publish in English (or maybe French -- when Israel was founded in 1948, its third official language was French rather than English). > why isn't this cross-posted to a medical or biological NG? Latin based > coinages are AFAIK more alive in those fields. philosophy tends, AFAIK > towards german. particle physics is inovative: quark (a fundamental > particle, IIRC from a type of german cheese, but based on a miss- Did Gell-Mann ever claim any connection with Ger. Quark?? > quotation from James Joyce) and "color" and "flavor",(characteristics Joyce _didn't_ write "three quarks for Mister Mork"? > of quarks, it is said that inspired by ice-cream types that came in > different colors and flavors while the theoretician was musing over > the theory). ironically, the man responsible for these coinages is > seriously interested in linguistics. Unfortunately he fell in with a "linguist" who is not taken seriously. >>>>> The third explanation is that English is more versatile. IOW, >>>>> people can make up new words easily. I did this as part of [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Joyce _didn't_ write "three quarks for Mister Mork"? Strictly speaking, he wrote "Three quarks for Muster Mark!" SignatureJames > >>>>> The third explanation is that English is more versatile. IOW, > >>>>> people can make up new words easily. I did this as part of [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Strictly speaking, he wrote "Three quarks for Muster Mark!" Yeah, that's how I've seen it. So what's the misquotation? > > >>>>> The third explanation is that English is more versatile. IOW, > > >>>>> people can make up new words easily. I did this as part of [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Yeah, that's how I've seen it. So what's the misquotation? Obviously, there's no misquotation given the "_didn't_" in your line. Get over it, and thanks for not being a regular in sci.physics for you would be a visual, given Usenet is the medium it is, pain. Enjo(y)... -- Mahipal > > > >>>>> The third explanation is that English is more versatile. IOW, > > > >>>>> people can make up new words easily. I did this as part of [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > Enjo(y)... At least the Indians in sci.lang can write intelligible English. I have no idea what you just said. Peter T. Daniels (in alt.usage.english): > At least the Indians in sci.lang can write intelligible English. Like Purl Gurl? Joachim > Peter T. Daniels (in alt.usage.english): >> >> At least the Indians in sci.lang can write intelligible English. > > Like Purl Gurl? > Joachim I am only guessing that Peter meant Indian Indians. pjk PaulJK (in sci.lang): >> Peter T. Daniels (in alt.usage.english): >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I am only guessing that Peter meant Indian Indians. You'll get a barnstar for grasping my joke. Joachim > > > > >>>>> The third explanation is that English is more versatile. IOW, > > > > >>>>> people can make up new words easily. I did this as part of [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > At least the Indians in sci.lang can write intelligible English. I > have no idea what you just said. You know no Indians in any news group. Type whatever you may think you're cleverly saying. You obviously have problems reading the written words. Only a mere two whole sentences, and you had no idea what got said! Wonderful. Try this in Hindi or Math or Otherwise: "Pretentious Pain" == "Peter Daniels" Ergo, why I thought you a visual pain, in any medium -- written or otherwise. Enjo(y)... -- Mahipal > > > > > The third explanation is that English is more versatile. IOW, > > > > > people can make up new words easily. I did this as part of [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > What does Neo-Syriac (or any form of Modern Aramaic) have to do with > the creation of modern scientific vocabulary? I was talking about classical languages that have been revived for everyday use, including terms for new technology, not neccessarily at that point about scientific vocabulary, which I get into later. > Israeli scholars do publish in Hebrew, but they realize that if > they're going to get an international hearing, they have to publish in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Did Gell-Mann ever claim any connection with Ger. Quark?? no, he didn't. > > quotation from James Joyce) and "color" and "flavor",(characteristics > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Unfortunately he fell in with a "linguist" who is not taken seriously. On Dec 25, 1:54 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote: > On Dec 25, 11:43 am, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > What does Neo-Syriac (or any form of Modern Aramaic) have to do with > the creation of modern scientific vocabulary? I was talking about classical languages ==================================== That's just great, by WHY are you posting to sci.physics? Are you so fuckin' stupid that you don't realise it's off-topic? > On Dec 25, 1:54 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > That's just great, by WHY are you posting to sci.physics? > Are you so fuckin' stupid that you don't realise it's off-topic? OK. I didn't look at the NG's. > On Dec 25, 1:54 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > That's just great, by WHY are you posting to sci.physics? > Are you so fuckin' stupid that you don't realise it's off-topic?- Why don't you abuse the person who actually created the crossposting? Just recently, there was a long thread in sci.lang and alt.usage.english about the word for "oxygen" in various languages, in which it was repeatedly asserted, without contradiction, that scientists understand the etymologies of their technical terminology. Obviously that was a false assumption. But if you don't know the history of physics, you're a pretty poor physicist. > Just recently, there was a long thread in sci.lang and > alt.usage.english about the word for "oxygen" in various languages, in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > But if you don't know the history of physics, you're a pretty poor > physicist. He's not a physicist. He's a crank, which makes it pretty hypocritical that he would complain about 'off-topic'' postings. Andrew Usher > > Just recently, there was a long thread in sci.lang and > > alt.usage.english about the word for "oxygen" in various languages, in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > He's not a physicist. He's a crank, which makes it pretty hypocritical > that he would complain about 'off-topic'' postings. Ah. > > > > > > The third explanation is that English is more versatile. IOW, > > > > > > people can make up new words easily. I did this as part of [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > everyday use, including terms for new technology, not neccessarily at > that point about scientific vocabulary, which I get into later. Modern Aramaic is not a classical language that has been revived for everyday use, so what's your point? > > Israeli scholars do publish in Hebrew, but they realize that if > > they're going to get an international hearing, they have to publish in [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > no, he didn't. Then why did you say he did? > > > quotation from James Joyce) and "color" and "flavor",(characteristics > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > > Unfortunately he fell in with a "linguist" who is not taken seriously.- > > > > > > > The third explanation is that English is more versatile. IOW, > > > > > > > people can make up new words easily. I did this as part of [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > Then why did you say he did? I said the word was from German, not that Gell-Mann claimed the connection. > > > > quotation from James Joyce) and "color" and "flavor",(characteristics > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > > > Unfortunately he fell in with a "linguist" who is not taken seriously. > > > > > why isn't this cross-posted to a medical or biological NG? Latin based > > > > > coinages are AFAIK more alive in those fields. philosophy tends, AFAIK [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I said the word was from German, not that Gell-Mann claimed the > connection. So now it's your claim that Joyce was writing about three cottage- cheeses for Muster Mark? > > > > > > why isn't this cross-posted to a medical or biological NG? Latin based > > > > > > coinages are AFAIK more alive in those fields. philosophy tends, AFAIK [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > So now it's your claim that Joyce was writing about three cottage- > cheeses for Muster Mark? I don't have any idea what Joyce had in mind, but I know that quark is a type of cheese in German. > > > > > > > why isn't this cross-posted to a medical or biological NG? Latin based > > > > > > > coinages are AFAIK more alive in those fields. philosophy tends, AFAIK [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I don't have any idea what Joyce had in mind, but I know that quark is > a type of cheese in German.- Everyone knows that. But it has nothing to do with the name of the subatomic particle, unless Joyce was referencing it in that passage. > > > > > > > > why isn't this cross-posted to a medical or biological NG? Latin based > > > > > > > > coinages are AFAIK more alive in those fields. philosophy tends, AFAIK [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Everyone knows that. But it has nothing to do with the name of the > subatomic particle, unless Joyce was referencing it in that passage. IMHO he might have been. >> > > > > > > why isn't this cross-posted to a medical or biological NG? Latin based >> > > > > > > coinages are AFAIK more alive in those fields. philosophy tends, AFAIK [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >Everyone knows that. But it has nothing to do with the name of the >subatomic particle, unless Joyce was referencing it in that passage. It was the other way around. Quarks were named after one of the many unusual words in Finnegans Wake. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>> > > > > > > why isn't this cross-posted to a medical or biological NG? Latin based >>> > > > > > > coinages are AFAIK more alive in those fields. philosophy tends, AFAIK [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >It was the other way around. Quarks were named after one of the many >unusual words in Finnegans Wake. I started to say that - but on reflection I think Peter means "unless Joyce was referencing the cheese". SignatureIan D > >>> > > > > > > why isn't this cross-posted to a medical or biological NG? Latin based > >>> > > > > > > coinages are AFAIK more alive in those fields. philosophy tends, AFAIK [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > I started to say that - but on reflection I think Peter means "unless > Joyce was referencing the cheese". I don't see how what I wrote could be interpreted any other way. >>> On Dec 26, 8:58 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> >>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > It was the other way around. Quarks were named after one of the many > unusual words in Finnegans Wake. Here's what the coiner himself wrote to the OED: "Compare the following account given by Gell-Mann in a private letter of 27 June 1978 to the Editor of the Supplement to the O.E.D.: 'I employed the sound "quork" for several weeks in 1963 before noticing "quark" in "Finnegans Wake", which I had perused from time to time since it appeared in 1939... The allusion to three quarks seemed perfect... I needed an excuse for retaining the pronunciation quork despite the occurrence of "Mark", "bark", "mark", and so forth in Finnegans Wake. I found that excuse by supposing that one ingredient of the line "Three quarks for Muster Mark" was a cry of "Three quarts for Mister..." heard in H. C. Earwicker's pub.'" SignatureJames >>>> On Dec 26, 8:58 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> >>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >quarks for Muster Mark" was a cry of "Three quarts for Mister..." heard >in H. C. Earwicker's pub.'" Interesting, James. The several cross-posted groups were deleted from this post. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>> I don't have any idea what Joyce had in mind, but I know that quark is >>> a type of cheese in German.- [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It was the other way around. Quarks were named after one of the many > unusual words in Finnegans Wake. The OED gives "quark" as "[a] type of soft, unripened cow's milk cheese of German origin, with a low fat content and smooth texture" with an American citation from 1903 & a British one from 1931. So it's *possible* that Joyce had heard of the dairy product. (But I wouldn't bet on it.) SignatureA: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? >>>> I don't have any idea what Joyce had in mind, but I know that quark is >>>> a type of cheese in German.- [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >So it's *possible* that Joyce had heard of the dairy product. (But I >wouldn't bet on it.) Before I agree it is possible, I would have to dig up my copy of FW to see if that meaning of quark makes sense in context. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>>> I don't have any idea what Joyce had in mind, but I know that quark is >>>>> a type of cheese in German.- [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Before I agree it is possible, I would have to dig up my copy of FW to > see if that meaning of quark makes sense in context. It doesn't. It's got more to do with the squawking of sea birds. SignatureJames >>>>>> I don't have any idea what Joyce had in mind, but I know that quark is >>>>>> a type of cheese in German.- [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >It doesn't. It's got more to do with the squawking of sea birds. Thank you, James. I wasn't looking forward to searching through that nearly incomprehensible book. Quark does sound like a squawk from a sea bird, all right. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > >>>> I don't have any idea what Joyce had in mind, but I know that quark is > >>>> a type of cheese in German.- [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >So it's *possible* that Joyce had heard of the dairy product. (But I > >wouldn't bet on it.) Since Joyce stayed in Zurich it for quite some time it is quite unlikely hat he never heard the word. And Trieste was a very Austrian city too. > Before I agree it is possible, I would have to dig up my copy of FW to > see if that meaning of quark makes sense in context. Not on the obvious first level. But who knows what more Joyce had in mind. And if he hadn't some professor will find a reason for it anyway, Jan > > >>>On Dec 26, 10:04 am,YusufBGursey<y...@theworld.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > it is quite unlikely hat he never heard the word. > And Trieste was a very Austrian city too. thanks for the info. > > Before I agree it is possible, I would have to dig up my copy of FW to > > see if that meaning of quark makes sense in context. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Jan > >>> I don't have any idea what Joyce had in mind, but I know that quark is > >>> a type of cheese in German.- [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > So it's *possible* that Joyce had heard of the dairy product. (But I > wouldn't bet on it.) I would. Joyce lived in Trieste didn't he? > -- > A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. > Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? > A: Top-posting. > Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? >> The OED gives "quark" as "[a] type of soft, unripened cow's milk >> cheese of German origin, with a low fat content and smooth texture" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I would. Joyce lived in Trieste didn't he? Good point. SignatureMathematiker sind wie Franzosen: Was man ihnen auch sagt, übersetzen sie in ihre eigene Sprache, so daß unverzüglich etwas völlig anderes daraus wird. [Goethe] > >> The OED gives "quark" as "[a] type of soft, unripened cow's milk > >> cheese of German origin, with a low fat content and smooth texture" [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Good point. From quark(s) to quack(s) is just a qwerty-typo away. Joyce would've rejoiced, no matter where he lived -- close to cows or no. > -- > Mathematiker sind wie Franzosen: Was man ihnen auch sagt, übersetzen > sie in ihre eigene Sprache, so daß unverzüglich etwas völlig anderes > daraus wird. [Goethe] Goethe in German must be as eloquent, as He is translated. Enjo(y)... -- Mahipal > From quark(s) to quack(s) is just a qwerty-typo away. > Joyce would've rejoiced, no matter where he lived -- close to cows or > no. They don't wander far. >> Mathematiker sind wie Franzosen: Was man ihnen auch sagt, übersetzen >> sie in ihre eigene Sprache, so daß unverzüglich etwas völlig anderes >> daraus wird. [Goethe] > > Goethe in German must be as eloquent, as He is translated. Gauss is even better. SignatureLe beau est aussi utile que l'utile. [Victor Hugo] >> From quark(s) to quack(s) is just a qwerty-typo away. >> Joyce would've rejoiced, no matter where he lived -- close to cows or no. > >They don't wander far. Fermion cows do. >>> Mathematiker sind wie Franzosen: Was man ihnen auch sagt, übersetzen >>> sie in ihre eigene Sprache, so daà unverzüglich etwas völlig anderes [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Gauss is even better. "and there were boundary conditions. Amen"? Dave "and Euler and Galois of course" DeLaney Signature\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK> http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K. > > > > > > > why isn't this cross-posted to a medical or biological NG? Latin based > > > > > > > coinages are AFAIK more alive in those fields. philosophy tends, AFAIK [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I don't have any idea what Joyce had in mind, but I know that quark is > a type of cheese in German. on another note, I had heard that the politicians and other bureaucrats in charge of funding had complained that such names as "quark", "flavor" and "charm" (the last invented by another particle physicist) made their endaevors sound frivolous to those in charge of the funding. >>> The third explanation is that English is more versatile. IOW, >>> people can make up new words easily. I did this as part of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > classicists that control Latin insist on purity over accepting new > words like any living language must. And don't forget that those who do the work also get to give it a name. After WWII, the science and technology biz was done in the USA. Other European countries were recovering from the war. JMF had to take German when getting his physics degrees because a lot of papers were written in German. I don't when that requirement was dropped. However, as more and more papers were written in English by Americans during the 50s and 60s, the default language used became English. As the commercial airline biz spread from the US to the rest of the world, the default language used became English. /BAH > > > The use of Latin in the sciences and other learned fields basically > > > ceased in the 18th and 19th centuries. I have long wondered why people [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > I take it you don't know Arabic? true, Arabic invents words for everyday technological words, but there is considerable amount of simple borrowing in higher scientific terminology. there is no calque, for example, for "oxygen". "electricity" is kahriba:' from the persian word for "amber", but kahrab or kuhayrib (the diminutive form) did not catch on for "electron" or "electronic". > Which newsgroup are you in? >>> The use of Latin in the sciences and other learned fields basically >>> ceased in the 18th and 19th centuries. I have long wondered why people [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > I take it you don't know Arabic? Correct. But what does this question have to do with why English, or American ;-), is the language used as a default language? > Which newsgroup are you in? sci.physics. /BAH > >>> The use of Latin in the sciences and other learned fields basically > >>> ceased in the 18th and 19th centuries. I have long wondered why people [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > /BAH- It has to do with the claim that English is "more versatile" (scil. than other world languages) in its ability to "make up new words easily." A claim that English borrows (assimilates) words from other languages more easily than other world languages is more legitimate. >>>>> The use of Latin in the sciences and other learned fields basically >>>>> ceased in the 18th and 19th centuries. I have long wondered why people [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > than other world languages) in its ability to "make up new words > easily." However, that is one of the reasons English was used to describe science and technical specs instead of another Western Civ language. There are no government rules that prevent creation of new words in countries where some form of English is spoken. > A claim that English borrows (assimilates) words from other languages > more easily than other world languages is more legitimate. Oh, I see what you're saying now :-). I don't write well and never have. /BAH > >>>>> The use of Latin in the sciences and other learned fields basically > >>>>> ceased in the 18th and 19th centuries. I have long wondered why people [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > language. There are no government rules that prevent creation > of new words in countries where some form of English is spoken. Not in France, not in Israel, not anywhere else that there's an Academy of Language do "government rules prevent creation of new words." New words continue to come into languages as they are needed, whether or not they get into some official wordlist somewhere, and there's nothing a "government" can do about it. > > A claim that English borrows (assimilates) words from other languages > > more easily than other world languages is more legitimate. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > /BAH- <snip> >> However, that is one of the reasons English was used to describe >> science and technical specs instead of another Western Civ [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > whether or not they get into some official wordlist somewhere, and > there's nothing a "government" can do about it. The purpose of the law which required JMF's presentation to be translated was to keep the language pure. All it did was prevent training and, thus, production. If the government wants to purge non-French words from the country, let them. But insisting that those public meetings be conducted in French is nonsense. The seminar should have been scheduled for 6 hours instead of 1 so the time needed for translation could be done. The content of the seminar was technical and most of the words used would have been English anyway. /BAH /BAH > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > The purpose of the law which required JMF's presentation to > be translated was to keep the language pure. All it did was "The purpose of the law" can be determined from what in the US is called the "legislative history" and its interpretation in the courts. "The purpose of the law" is not invented by someone with paranoiac notions of "language purity." > prevent training and, thus, production. If the government > wants to purge non-French words from the country, let them. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > /BAH Or ... the speaker could actually have had the courtesy to have their speech translated into French (if they couldn't handle the language themself). Is "CIV" going to turn up in your little narratives one of these days? On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 07:13:23 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in <news:149065af-e4ab-4d84-aedb-57a8999264af@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.philosophy: >> <snip> >>>> However, that is one of the reasons English was used to >>>> describe science and technical specs instead of >>>> another Western Civ language. There are no government >>>> rules that prevent creation of new words in countries >>>> where some form of English is spoken. >>> Not in France, not in Israel, not anywhere else that >>> there's an Academy of Language do "government rules >>> prevent creation of new words." New words continue to >>> come into languages as they are needed, whether or not >>> they get into some official wordlist somewhere, and >>> there's nothing a "government" can do about it. True, but not particularly relevant to the incident in question. >> The purpose of the law which required JMF's presentation >> to be translated was to keep the language pure. All it >> did was > "The purpose of the law" can be determined from what in > the US is called the "legislative history" and its > interpretation in the courts. > "The purpose of the law" is not invented by someone with > paranoiac notions of "language purity." BAH is probably right about the underlying purpose of the law in question. >> prevent training and, thus, production. If the government >> wants to purge non-French words from the country, let them. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> could be done. The content of the seminar was technical >> and most of the words used would have been English anyway. > Or ... the speaker could actually have had the courtesy to > have their speech translated into French (if they > couldn't handle the language themself). Wouldn't have helped much, since the seminar was far too short anyway. Wasn't necessary, since everyone involved spoke English. > Is "CIV" going to turn up in your little narratives one of > these days? No, though a couple of poker decks might be an acceptable stand-in. Brian > On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 07:13:23 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > short anyway. Wasn't necessary, since everyone involved > spoke English. JMF assumed that there were some people who didn't speak English and endured the delays. After the formal presentation ended, he found out that everyone could understand English and the translation was due to that law about purism. Try to pretend that his seminar was about baking a chocolate cake; he didn't even get to finish listing the ingredients due to the time constraint, especially the chocolate piece of the material. >> Is "CIV" going to turn up in your little narratives one of >> these days? > > No, though a couple of poker decks might be an acceptable > stand-in. The sentence, "Subtract one hundred four" is supposed to be appended to my posts. Somehow, somewhere, it disappeared. /BAH On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 08:51:05 -0500, jmfbahciv in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.philosophy: >> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 07:13:23 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >> <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in >> <news:149065af-e4ab-4d84-aedb-57a8999264af@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> >> in >> sci.math,sci.physics,sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.philosophy: [...] >>> Is "CIV" going to turn up in your little narratives one of >>> these days? >> No, though a couple of poker decks might be an acceptable >> stand-in. > The sentence, "Subtract one hundred four" is supposed to > be appended to my posts. Somehow, somewhere, it > disappeared. Yes, I remembered it from some years ago. I thought it one of the cleverer munges. Brian > On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 08:51:05 -0500, jmfbahciv > in [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Yes, I remembered it from some years ago. I thought it one > of the cleverer munges. <grin> I was extremely surprised by the number of people who didn't know Roman numerals. /BAH > <grin> I was extremely surprised by the number of people > who didn't know Roman numerals. Isn't that why Hollywood adopted them so that people wouldn't realise just how old the films were? SignatureRob Bannister >> <grin> I was extremely surprised by the number of people >> who didn't know Roman numerals. > > Isn't that why Hollywood adopted them so that people wouldn't realise > just how old the films were? I had class sessions in grade school which taught them. IIRC, it was first or second grade. /BAH >>> <grin> I was extremely surprised by the number of people >>> who didn't know Roman numerals. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > /BAH So did I, I think a little later, and I still remember some of them. I don't remember a lot of stuff I was taught in primary or elementary school, and I bet for a lot of people, Roman numerals come in the 'not remembered' category. I don't even know if they teach them any more, or if they don't, when they stopped. I'd be a lot more knowledgeable than I am if I remembered everything I was taught. I'd have gotten better marks in school, too. SignatureCheryl Cheryl wrote on Fri, 01 Jan 2010 11:20:28 -0330: >>>> <grin> I was extremely surprised by the number of people >>>> who didn't know Roman numerals. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > numerals come in the 'not remembered' category. I don't even > know if they teach them any more, or if they don't, when they stopped. About the only time I try to decipher Roman numerals is when I look at the copyright dates on TV or movies. I find the use a strange custom and I wonder why producers do it? At least, I can usually remember what L and D indicate. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > Cheryl wrote on Fri, 01 Jan 2010 11:20:28 -0330: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > custom and I wonder why producers do it? At least, I can usually > remember what L and D indicate. They still produce books where all the introductory material is on pages with Roman numerals so that the main text starts on page 1. I just took one such book from my shelf; the preface ends on page clxiii. SignatureJames James wrote on Fri, 01 Jan 2010 17:04:14 +0100: >> Cheryl wrote on Fri, 01 Jan 2010 11:20:28 -0330: >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> a strange custom and I wonder why producers do it? At least, I can >> usually remember what L and D indicate. > They still produce books where all the introductory material > is on pages with Roman numerals so that the main text starts > on page 1. I just took one such book from my shelf; the > preface ends on page clxiii. I seldom read introductions or dedications especially those with Roman numerals but "clxiii" must be something of a record. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not >> Cheryl wrote on Fri, 01 Jan 2010 11:20:28 -0330: >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >with Roman numerals so that the main text starts on page 1. I just took >one such book from my shelf; the preface ends on page clxiii. Any book with a 73 page preface is likely to be a bore to read, IMO. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>> Cheryl wrote on Fri, 01 Jan 2010 11:20:28 -0330: >>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Any book with a 73 page preface is likely to be a bore to read, IMO. CLXIII = 163! A rather long introduction, yes. >>>> Cheryl wrote on Fri, 01 Jan 2010 11:20:28 -0330: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > CLXIII = 163! A rather long introduction, yes. It's my edition of "Njáls saga". It's not unusual to have long introductions to editions of old texts. SignatureJames >>>>> Cheryl wrote on Fri, 01 Jan 2010 11:20:28 -0330: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >It's my edition of "Njáls saga". It's not unusual to have long >introductions to editions of old texts. Everyone needs an edition of Njáls saga, I am sure. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>>>> Cheryl wrote on Fri, 01 Jan 2010 11:20:28 -0330: >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Everyone needs an edition of Njáls saga, I am sure. No home should be without one. SignatureJames >>>>>>> Cheryl wrote on Fri, 01 Jan 2010 11:20:28 -0330: >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > >No home should be without one. Nor a newsgroup with a member who reads the thing, life being an awful bore if we all had the same tastes. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE Chuck wrote on Mon, 04 Jan 2010 11:45:39 +0000: >>> Everyone needs an edition of Njáls saga, I am sure. >> >> No home should be without one. > Nor a newsgroup with a member who reads the thing, life being > an awful bore if we all had the same tastes. I read Njáls saga (in translation, of course) when I was a science graduate student. I still remember how surprised I was at how much I enjoyed it. I'll admit that I think a girl suggested the book. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > Chuck wrote on Mon, 04 Jan 2010 11:45:39 +0000: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > graduate student. I still remember how surprised I was at how much I > enjoyed it. I'll admit that I think a girl suggested the book. It's the Icelandic saga with probably the highest literary merit. SignatureJames > Chuck wrote on Mon, 04 Jan 2010 11:45:39 +0000: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >graduate student. I still remember how surprised I was at how much I >enjoyed it. I'll admit that I think a girl suggested the book. A mere slip of a girl, not a woman? SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>> Cheryl wrote on Fri, 01 Jan 2010 11:20:28 -0330: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > CLXIII = 163! A rather long introduction, yes. 163!That's what I thought! I was wondering if my trouble with larger numbers in Roman numerals was worse than I thought! I have trouble with dates, but I thought I had a reasonably good memory of smaller numbers. It's not a skill I use much, though. As for the length of the preface, I think everything depends on what's in it. Some prefaces can be quite fascinating, but others, although shorter, are tedious or simply unimportant and uninteresting. SignatureCheryl >>>>> Cheryl wrote on Fri, 01 Jan 2010 11:20:28 -0330: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >> >> CLXIII = 163! A rather long introduction, yes. I'd flunk Roman Arithmetic I. >163!That's what I thought! I was wondering if my trouble with larger >numbers in Roman numerals was worse than I thought! I have trouble with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >in it. Some prefaces can be quite fascinating, but others, although >shorter, are tedious or simply unimportant and uninteresting. That's true, but when a long preface is interesting, doesn't it encourage you to quickly skip to the text? And when one is long and dull, mightn't you, like me, lose interest in the text? I don't think an author can win with a long preface. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > I'd flunk Roman Arithmetic I. Addition's not too bad, especially if your abacus is marked in Is and Vs. Long division, however, is not recommended for the faint of heart. SignatureRob Bannister >> I'd flunk Roman Arithmetic I. > >Addition's not too bad, especially if your abacus is marked in Is and >Vs. Long division, however, is not recommended for the faint of heart. From http://www.ee.ryerson.ca/~elf/abacus/aaddition.html, addition sounds very complicated, at least to me. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>> <grin> I was extremely surprised by the number of people >>>> who didn't know Roman numerals. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > So did I, I think a little later, and I still remember some of them. It may have been later; I remember trying to do arithmetic with them. > I > don't remember a lot of stuff I was taught in primary or elementary > school, and I bet for a lot of people, Roman numerals come in the 'not > remembered' category. I don't even know if they teach them any more, or > if they don't, when they stopped. I had assumed they stopped because of the number of people who didn't know how what CIV was. > I'd be a lot more knowledgeable than I am if I remembered everything I > was taught. I'd have gotten better marks in school, too. <grin> /BAH >> <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > "The purpose of the law" can be determined from what in the US is > called the "legislative history" and its interpretation in the courts. HUH? WTF are you talking about? This is a French law in France, where the seminar was held. > "The purpose of the law" is not invented by someone with paranoiac > notions of "language purity." So why do you think that law exists? >> prevent training and, thus, production. If the government >> wants to purge non-French words from the country, let them. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > speech translated into French (if they couldn't handle the language > themself). I don't think you understood my story. > Is "CIV" going to turn up in your little narratives one of these days? now what are you talking about? /BAH > >> <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > HUH? WTF are you talking about? This is a French law in France, > where the seminar was held. If I knew what "legislative intent" is called in France, I would have used that term. > > "The purpose of the law" is not invented by someone with paranoiac > > notions of "language purity." > > So why do you think that law exists? My only evidence that it exists is your narrative above. > >> prevent training and, thus, production. If the government > >> wants to purge non-French words from the country, let them. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I don't think you understood my story. You told a story about someone giving a lecture in English in a society where lectures (for whatever reason) have to be given in French. The simplest way to do that would have been to give the lecture in French. As for squeezing six hours of material into a one-hour lecture, that's a red herring. It would have been just as foolish if there had been no translation requirement at all. > > Is "CIV" going to turn up in your little narratives one of these days? > > now what are you talking about? You managed to figure it out in your posting 22 minutes after this one (though it appears higher in the thread). >>>> <snip> >>>>>> However, that is one of the reasons English was used to describe [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > You managed to figure it out in your posting 22 minutes after this one > (though it appears higher in the thread). I see I've been wasting my time. /BAH > I see I've been wasting my time. If you're referring to your pontifications on matters you know nothing about, namely linguistics, then you may be right. >> I see I've been wasting my time. > > If you're referring to your pontifications on matters you know nothing > about, namely linguistics, then you may be right. I was trying to learn some stuff. It's too bad you are not interested in teaching it. /BAH > >> I see I've been wasting my time. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I was trying to learn some stuff. It's too bad you are not > interested in teaching it. With well over 500 postings in this thread, I can't remember what it was that you were trying to learn, but you came here armed with an enormous arsenal of preconceptions that need to be cleaned out. So can you ask your first question? jmfbahciv (in alt.usage.english): > The third explanation is that English is more versatile. IOW, > people can make up new words easily. I did this as part of > my job. Greek is versatile in making up new words by composition, and that's what western scientists did until recently. They mixed a lot of Latin words into this procedure, too. Chinese has been used for the same purpose in the east, and still is, (e. g., in Japan.) Joachim [snip] > Greek is versatile in making up new words by composition, and that's what > western scientists did until recently. Here's a graphical example which partially shows this versatility, for those who can follow it: http://ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.com/writing/definition.html For general cultural exchange, I'd say it's pretty obvious that the most versatile one is American-English, because its bastardization is phenomenal. At least as witnessed by this author, after spending 10 years there. That, which is bastardized and mutated the most is the one which adapts and survives the longest. It's probably not an accident that the net is predominantly English. > Joachim SignatureIoannis > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Here's a graphical example which partially shows this versatility, for those who > can follow it: By "follow," you mean 'read the Greek language'. And it's not a graphical example, it's a list. > http://ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.com/writing/definition.html > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That, which is bastardized and mutated the most is the one which adapts and > survives the longest. Anyone who refers to the borrowing of words between languages in contact as "bastardization" needs to learn a little linguistics before posting to sci.lang again. (Though you'd be at home in a small corner of alt.usage.english.) > It's probably not an accident that the net is predominantly English. >> [snip] >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >> http://ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.com/writing/definition.html Actually, no, one does not need to 'read the Greek language' to follow this page. The translation of the original definition is given on top. The rest is just repeated applications of the same definition, with "X" being replaced by the noun the definition uses and with the appropriate conjuctions added using a different color. That's what I meant by "graphical". I just thought the majority of the readers would be keen enough to notice. Apparently not. >> For general cultural exchange, I'd say it's pretty obvious that the most >> versatile one is American-English, because its bastardization is phenomenal. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > posting to sci.lang again. (Though you'd be at home in a small corner > of alt.usage.english.) Mea Culpa! Next time I decide to post to sci.lang, I'll make sure to email you for permissions first, before I get my second degree in linguistics. SignatureIoannis > >> [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > the noun the definition uses and with the appropriate conjuctions added using a > different color. That's what I meant by "graphical". Didn't you learn in science that definition by enumeration is unacceptable? "Graphic" would usually refer to a diagram, graph, or chart. > I just thought the majority of the readers would be keen enough to notice. > Apparently not. So you also apply the fallacy of deriving a general principle from an individual example? You do not have the slightest idea what "the majority of the readers" would or would not be keen enough to notice. > >> For general cultural exchange, I'd say it's pretty obvious that the most > >> versatile one is American-English, because its bastardization is phenomenal. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Mea Culpa! Next time I decide to post to sci.lang, I'll make sure to email you > for permissions first, before I get my second degree in linguistics. Your first degree in linguistics seems not to have taught you much, if anything. In sci.lang Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote: > Didn't you learn in science that definition by enumeration is > unacceptable? On the contrary, in mathematics, definition by enumerating axioms is THE acceptable way (granted, you probably did not mean _this_)... Signature----------------------------------------------------------- | Radovan Garabík http://kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk/~garabik/ | | __..--^^^--..__ garabik @ kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk | ----------------------------------------------------------- Antivirus alert: file .signature infected by signature virus. Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature file to help me spread! On Dec 26, 12:57 pm, garabik-news-2005...@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk wrote: > In sci.lang Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > On the contrary, in mathematics, definition by enumerating axioms > is THE acceptable way (granted, you probably did not mean _this_)... I meant listing all the examples you know of, and not mentioning anything similar that might, but doesn't, fit the pattern. I restored aue because there are a couple of postings in the thread from an aue'er. In sci.lang Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote: > On Dec 26, 12:57 pm, garabik-news-2005...@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I meant listing all the examples you know of, and not mentioning > anything similar that might, but doesn't, fit the pattern. I know. It depends on to what extent you consider terminology to make part of a science discipline. E.g., let me see... in geography, you might define Earth continents by, well, enumerating them. Until rather recently, Solar system planets were defined by enumerating them (with a note saying that Pluto "does not fit the pattern" and that some other objects do, but they are not called planets). Of course, it did not do a bit of difference for real astronomy - they just studied celestial objects, names do not change the outcome! > I restored aue because there are a couple of postings in the thread > from an aue'er. Blame aioe - they won't let me to post followups to more than 3 groups. Signature----------------------------------------------------------- | Radovan Garabík http://kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk/~garabik/ | | __..--^^^--..__ garabik @ kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk | ----------------------------------------------------------- Antivirus alert: file .signature infected by signature virus. Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature file to help me spread! On Dec 27, 3:50 pm, garabik-news-2005...@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk wrote: > In sci.lang Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > of a science discipline. E.g., let me see... in geography, you might define > Earth continents by, well, enumerating them. Is "continent" a technical term in geography? > Until rather recently, Solar system planets were defined by enumerating them > (with a note saying that Pluto "does not fit the pattern" and that some > other objects do, but they are not called planets). Of course, it did > not do a bit of difference for real astronomy - they just studied celestial > objects, names do not change the outcome! Was "planet" a technical term in astronomy? (Apparently it is now.) > > I restored aue because there are a couple of postings in the thread > > from an aue'er. > > Blame aioe - they won't let me to post followups to more than 3 groups. Then use a decent newsreader like google groups! (The same goes for whowever it was who asked who crossposted this thread to aue, since the first message in a thread is always instantly accessible there.) > On Dec 27, 3:50 pm, garabik-news-2005...@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk > wrote: >> Blame aioe - they won't let me to post followups to more than 3 groups. > > Then use a decent newsreader like google groups! This must be a meaning of "decent" that I've never met before. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. > > On Dec 27, 3:50 pm, garabik-news-2005...@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > This must be a meaning of "decent" that I've never met before. It lets you post to five groups ... and it always has the complete thread available. None of the newsgroup-snobs has yet produced a single reason to switch away. In sci.lang Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote: >> > On Dec 27, 3:50 pm, garabik-news-2005...@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk >> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > It lets you post to five groups ... and it always has the complete > thread available. My news*reader* (tin) is perfect, it lets me enter and diplay unicode characters without a hitch, it can post to whatever groups you can, I can use my favourite editor, I can read news from any computer (that has ssh client installed), etc... but ever since all the news*servers* in our network bitrotted, I am left with free ones, and some of them, like aioe, limit follow-ups (not posting) to 3 groups... Of course, I could pay for a commercial server, but it is just not worth the (tiny amount of) money for me... since I seldom cross-post and cross-follow-up. > None of the newsgroup-snobs has yet produced a single reason to switch > away. Exactly - I have no reason to switch away from tin, and only a very tiny reasons to switch from aioe. If the google groups werea news*server* (it is not! It offers no NNTP accesss, then, by definition, it is just a www interface, not a newsserver), I might reconsider. Signature----------------------------------------------------------- | Radovan Garabík http://kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk/~garabik/ | | __..--^^^--..__ garabik @ kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk | ----------------------------------------------------------- Antivirus alert: file .signature infected by signature virus. Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature file to help me spread! Sun, 27 Dec 2009 19:14:07 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >None of the newsgroup-snobs has yet produced a single reason to switch >away. Google strings together URL on separate lines into a single line even without spaces between the URLs. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com >> > On Dec 27, 3:50 pm, garabik-news-2005...@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk >> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >None of the newsgroup-snobs has yet produced a single reason to switch >away. Cross-posted groups deleted. Speaking of newsgroup-snobs, who in AUE doesn't object to all the cross-posting we've been seeing lately? It is time, I think, to put an end to it. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > >> > On Dec 27, 3:50 pm, garabik-news-2005...@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk > >> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > cross-posting we've been seeing lately? It is time, I think, to put an > end to it. I filter all posts that go to more than three groups, so haven't noticed any crossposting except the occasional aue/aeu/sci.lang, and this is the first time I've seen anything of this particular thread. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >> >> > On Dec 27, 3:50 pm, garabik-news-2005...@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk >> >> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >noticed any crossposting except the occasional aue/aeu/sci.lang, and >this is the first time I've seen anything of this particular thread. Three groups is reasonable, IMO, especially if one of them is alt.english.usage, but I've been seeing four and more, lately. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > Speaking of newsgroup-snobs, who in AUE doesn't object to all the > cross-posting we've been seeing lately? It is time, I think, to put an > end to it. Despite the scattershot approach, it's been a civilised discussion for the most part. I've noticed only one troll, plus the inevitable PTD who turns up whenever cross-posting is in the air. If you killfile PTD, what remains is a civilised group of people. I haven't killed him myself; his remarkable narrowmindedness mkes for an interesting study. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >> On Dec 27, 3:50 pm, garabik-news-2005...@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > This must be a meaning of "decent" that I've never met before. ROTFLMAO. /BAH > On Dec 27, 3:50 pm, garabik-news-2005...@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Then use a decent newsreader like google groups! Maybe he doesn't want to run risk of having 'funny' characters displayed as spaces. :-) pjk > (The same goes for whowever it was who asked who crossposted this > thread to aue, since the first message in a thread is always instantly > accessible there.) In sci.lang PaulJK <paul.kriha@paradise.net.nz> wrote: > Maybe he doesn't want to run risk of having 'funny' characters > displayed as spaces. :-) Přesně tak :-) Signature----------------------------------------------------------- | Radovan Garabík http://kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk/~garabik/ | | __..--^^^--..__ garabik @ kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk | ----------------------------------------------------------- Antivirus alert: file .signature infected by signature virus. Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature file to help me spread! In sci.lang Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote: > Is "continent" a technical term in geography? Dunno. It is, however, widely used. > Was "planet" a technical term in astronomy? Yes. Not formally defined (except by enumeration), though. > (Apparently it is now.) ...except of extrasolar planets, which by this definition are not planets... To which extent does a terminology make a part of the language of science? And what about informal, but widely used terminology? It is an open question for which I have no answer. However, let's not leave out mathematics: many interesting fields, rings and groups are defined by enumeration of their members, operations and rules (see Boolean algebra for a simple one). Heck, even natural numbers are defined by their "enumeration" in a sense (Peano axioms). Signature----------------------------------------------------------- | Radovan Garabík http://kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk/~garabik/ | | __..--^^^--..__ garabik @ kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk | ----------------------------------------------------------- Antivirus alert: file .signature infected by signature virus. Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature file to help me spread! Peter T. Daniels wrote (27-12-2009 21:23): > On Dec 27, 3:50 pm, garabik-news-2005...@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Is "continent" a technical term in geography? It is in geology, but not at all with the geographical meaning, and not defined by enumeration (e.g. 'Siberia' is a continent since it fits some criteria). > On Dec 27, 3:50 pm, garabik-news-2005...@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk > wrote: >> Until rather recently, Solar system planets were defined by enumerating them >> (with a note saying that Pluto "does not fit the pattern" and that some [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Was "planet" a technical term in astronomy? (Apparently it is now.) Here's the 2006 definition: (1) A planet [1] is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit. (2) A "dwarf planet" is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape [2], (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and (d) is not a satellite. (3) All other objects [3], except satellites, orbiting the Sun shall be referred to collectively as "Small Solar System Bodies". http://www.iau.org/static/resolutions/Resolution_GA26-5-6.pdf (There's a more complicated definition for exoplanets (outside our solar system).) SignatureNobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public. [Mencken] > > On Dec 27, 3:50 pm, garabik-news-2005...@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Here's the 2006 definition: Wow. almost three months this time. There was a Nova program just last week -- narrated by Neil de Grasse Tyson, who started the public controversy back in 2000 by excluding Pluto from the display of planets in the new Rose Center that surrounds the new Hayden Planetarium -- that made it clear that "planet" was indeed _not_ a technical term in astronomy until the 2006 annual meeting of the body that decides such things, when competing definitions of "planet" were discussed and put to a vote. Some of the people involved remain unhappy with the outcome. > (1) A planet [1] is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around > the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > (There's a more complicated definition for exoplanets (outside our > solar system).) >> > Was "planet" a technical term in astronomy? (Apparently it is now.) >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > definitions of "planet" were discussed and put to a vote. Some of the > people involved remain unhappy with the outcome. Yes, I think that's a fair summary. SignatureTwo of the most famous products of Berkeley are LSD and Unix. I don't think that this is a coincidence. [anonymous] > > On Dec 27, 3:50 pm, garabik-news-2005...@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Here's the 2006 definition: yes, but there were various attempts and debates about defining "planet" before that. > (1) A planet [1] is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around > the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of > the American public. [Mencken] > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > It's probably not an accident that the net is predominantly English. The net is predominantly English because the US made most of the hard/software during the 50s, 60s, 70s. If you think about it, we didn't use English but shorthand forms of cybercurd (my word for cybercruft). The documentation, which was shipped with the hard/software, was written in American (not English). This last sentence is very important because of the nouns used to describe components and other aspects covered in our specifications. JMF and I went on a cruise which included a trip to Beijing. We visited a Children's Palace and discovered a room full of kids younger than 6 typing on Apple computers. We could read their code. JMF had a fine discussion about computers with the teacher; neither knew the other's oral language. /BAH > And so, some explanations suggest themselves. The first is that the > predominant advocates and defenders of Latin, from the Renaissance to > now, are from the humanities; and so once Latin had disappeared from > live literary use, their support was no longer important. The Roman Empire. > The use of Latin in the sciences and other learned fields basically > ceased in the 18th and 19th centuries. I have long wondered why people [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > have started writing in French, and if they had wanted to oppose them, > they should have re-emphasised the role of Latin. But, the French are also one of the main reasons that the people who understand post lighting rod engineering invented communication satellites, weather satellites, gps, atomic clock wristwatches, light sticks, optical computers, desktop emulators, desktop publishing, holographics, digital books, cyber batteries, self-replicating machines, self-assembling robots, laser disks, xml, hdtv, blue ray, home broadband, data fusion, UAVs, Post ASCII Cruise Missiles, USB, Digital Terrain Mapping, Phalanx, Thermo-Electric Cooling, Microwave Cooling, mp3, mpeg, all-in-one printers, on-line publishing, and the 21st Century. > Now, of course, I can't propose the revival of Latin for these > purposes: English has virtually replaced it as the international [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Andrew Usher zzbunker netscap .net wrote: > But, the French are also one of the main reasons that the people > who understand post [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Microwave Cooling, mp3, mpeg, all-in-one printers, on-line > publishing, and the 21st Century. Ah, good to see you here, zz! Can anyone here on sci lang explain how zz works? I'd be interested in hearing what kind of algorithm he uses. Dennis Chazwin wrote: > All thinking is language dependant totally; poviding one defines thinking as the ordering of language into coherent ideas, then the process into coherence is the action of thought - Descarte used this processing method to rationalise his discourse on consrciousness "I think therefore I am." conceptualizing on the other hand is visualisation dependant; i.e an idea fashioned from a group of ordered thoughts such as a picture; a tree, a car --in othe rwords all nouns as actual objects are concepts - images --and the thought-process though dealing with the noun, only point at the object rather than the instant or direct instantiation I would therefore make the distinction that thinking in images is totally different to linear arrangements or the actually process of thinking: Peter Moylan wrote: > I'm curious to know whether there is any connection between "visually > minded" in the sense used above in reference to mathematics, and > "visually minded" in the sense that makes one a good artist. The artistic bent has a tendency toward conceptualising a lot easily IMO-- also, children who don't read much have a higher tendency toward conceptualizing: Over time, as language skills improve, and as the communication balances shift to a language prinicple, the capacity to visualize decreases. I would bet that those adults who have vivid dreams still pocess a strong conceptual capacity. when did you last experience a dream that felt totally real? I have a strong artistic bent, but I consider my thought processes as language dominated. I can paint photorealism, which is somewhat a contradiction. But actually, photorealism has a large linear though- process and also takes spatial -tonal and chromatic awarenesses which are conceptual. Peter T. Daniels > I don't see how what I wrote could be interpreted any other way. It is what it is --but I will add about the international The actual learned's transmission dependant on international language is as it has always been --Totally dependant upon reason: I know that the international component struck accord with the accorded - including the addressed. -it is his character, well known throughout the world. I know it also accorded with the lessor understood languages, and heard reported new of this accord at lest in part with those who are principled with reason. its the dialectual differences in interpretations that will prove their local bane Brian M. Scott wrote: > Now there I disagree: they don't have [ø:]. Its strange, but the phrase of an expanding universe existed before this term was coined: Its a logical puzzle for sure, like getting grapes from a lemon tree -- [ø:] would you know the rationalisation for an expanding universe? but considering physics is riddled with examples of violations of most laws, it isn't surprising. ps evidence: the 134 other posts. > The artistic bent has a tendency toward conceptualising a lot easily > IMO-- also, children who don't read much have a higher tendency toward [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > process and also takes spatial -tonal and chromatic awarenesses which > are conceptual. thats not to say that conceptualizing isn't possible via thought processing, it just takes a whole bunch of them forming cohernet ideas, arrange together to form a concept. afterall, the concept of consciousness was rationalise throught the process of thought processing by Descarte "Exegi monumentum aere perennius." (I have erected a monument more lasting than bronze. (Horace)) "nonne amicus certus in re incerta cernitur?" (a friend in need is a friend in deed (our equivalent)) "Sine labore nihil" (Nothing without work) "Conlige suspectos semper habitos" (Round up the usual suspects) "Veni, Vidi, Dormivi" (I came, I saw, I slept) "Veni, vidi, vici" (I came, I saw, I conquered. (Caesar)) "Te Amo" (I Love You) "Corripe Cervisiam" (Seize the beer!) "Carpe Diem!" (Seize the day (Horace)) "Ante bellum" (Before the war) "Caveat emptor" (Let the buyer beware.) "Merda taurorum animas conturbit" (Bullshit baffles brains) "Homo praesumitur bonus donec probetur malus" (One is innocent until proven guilty.) "Mors ultima linea rerum est" (Death is everything's final limit) "Cogita ante salis." (Think before you leap (or roughly - Look before you leap.) ) "Terra firma" (Solid ground) "Habeas corpus" (You should have the body (You have the undeniable right)) Ridentem dicere verum quid vetat.(Horace, Satires) What prevents me from speaking the truth with a smile? Vir sapit qui pauca loquitur. It is a wise man who speaks little. Cogito Ergo Sum. I think Therefore I am. Non Gradus Anus Rodentum! Not Worth A Rats a.s! Si hoc signum legere potes, operis boni in rebus Latinis alacribus et fructuosis potiri potes! If you can read this sign, you can get a good job in the fast-paced, high-paying world of Latin!) Sona si Latine loqueris. (Honk if you speak Latin.) Re vera, potas bene. (Say, you sure are drinking a lot.) Romani quidem artem amatoriam invenerunt. (You know, the Romans invented the art of love.) Mellita, domi adsum. (Honey, I'm home.) Magister Mundi sum! (I am the Master of the Universe!) Estne volumen in toga, an solum tibi libet me videre? (Is that a scroll in your toga, or are you just happy to see me?) Vescere bracis meis. (Eat my shorts.) "illegitimi non carborundum" ((Check out this Wikipedia page for the history of the phrase.) Roughly Translated: Don't let the bastards grind you down.) Da mihi sis cerevisiam dilutam. (I'll have a light beer.) Da mihi sis bubulae frustrum assae, solana tuberosa in modo Gallico fricta, ac quassum lactatum coagulatum crassum. (Give me a hamburger, french fries, and a thick shake.) Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt. (When catapults are outlawed, only outlaws will have catapults.) Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris. (If Caesar were alive, you'd be chained to an oar.) "Errare humanum est" ((to err is human) mistakes are human) "Cave cibum, valde malus est." (Beware the food, it is very bad.) "Stercus accidit" (sh.t happens) "In Vino Veritas" (In wine there is truth (People say what they really mean when they're drunk)) "pax vobiscum" (peace be with you) Ubi fumus, ibi ignis. Where there's smoke, there's fire. "dulce et decorum est pro patria mori." (it is sweet and fitting to die for ones country) "ad infinitum" (to infinity) "ad nauseam" (to sickness) "Veritas Lux Mea" (The truth enlightens me / The truth is my light (Motto of Seoul National University in South Korea)) "Medio tutissmus ibis" (You will go most safely by the middle course) "Exitus acta probat" (The outcome justifies the deed) "Fronti nulla fides" (No reliance can be placed on appearance) "Bellum omium contra omnes" (Everyman's struggle against everyman (from "Leviathan" by Thomas Hobbes)) "Omnia mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis" (All things are changing, and we are changing with them) "Nemo nisi mors" (No one but death (shall part us)) "primum non nocere" (first do no harm) "Pacta Sunt Servanda" (Accords (or treaties) should be observed (Basic principle of International Law)) "Qui tacet consentit" (silence implies consent) "fabas indulcet fames" (literally "hunger sweetens beans" or hunger makes everything taste good!) "Corruptio optimi pessima" (corruption of the best is worst) "Res melius evinissent cum Coca" (Things go better with Coke.) "Nemo dat quod non habet" (No one gives what he doesn't have.) "Qui potest capere capiat" (Let him accept it who can. Freely: If the shoe fits, wear it.) "Quod scripsi, scripsi." (What I have written, I have written--Pilate. And he probably did speak in Latin.) "Contra Felicem vix deus vires habet." (against a lucky man a god scarcely has power.) "Deus et natua non faciunt frusta" (God and nature do not work together in vain) "sunt lacrimae rerum et mentem mortalia tangunt" ((Vergil: the Aeneid: ) these are the tears of things, and our mortality cuts to the heart) "Mens sibi conscia recti" (a mind conscious of its rectitude) "Aequam memento rebus in arduis servare mentem" (remember to keep a calm mind in difficulties) "Delenda est Carthago" (Carthage must be destroyed) "Ceterum censeo, Carthago delenda est" (That is my opinion. It is further my opinion, that Carthage must be destroyed (by Marcus Porcius Cato (Cato the Elder), a Roman Senator)) "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam" (And therefore, I conclude that Carthage must be destroyed (perhaps most correct)(by Marcus Porcius Cato (Cato the Elder), a Roman Senator)) "Deus commodo muto consisto quem meus canis sententia existo." (Which, in a very ham-fisted way, with generosity, comes close to being:) "Meliora Cogito" (I strive for the best") "O tempora, O mores!" (Oh the times, oh the morals! (Cicero)) "Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit, occidentis telum est" (A sword is never a killer, it's a tool in the killer's hands")(Lucius Annaeus Seneca "the younger" ca. (4 BC - 65 AD)) "Odi et amo, quare id facere forasse requiris...Nescio, sed fieri sentio et excrucior" (I hated and I love, perhaps you ask why I do it...I don't know, but I feel it and I'm tortured.) "Tempus amoris cubiculum non est..." (The time for love is not in the bedroom...) Malum consilium quod mutari non potest. It's a bad plan that can't be changed.(Publilius Syrus 403) Homines libenter quod volunt credunt. Men freely believe what they want to. (used by Julius Caesar, but probably borrowed from Terentius.) Qui vult dare parva non debet magna rogare. He who wishes to give little shouldn't ask for much. Flamma fumo est proxima. Flame follows smoke. (Plautus, Curculio) Adversus incendia excubias nocturnas vigilesque commentus est. Against the dangers of fires, he (=Augustus) conceived of the idea of night guards and watchmen. (Suetonius, Life of Augustus) Trahimur omnes studio laudis. We are all attracted by the desire for praise. Avarus animus nullo satiatur lucro. A greedy mind is satisfied with no (amount of) gain. Alea iacta est. The die has been cast. (Caesar as he was crossing the Rubicon river ) Exegi monumentum aere perennius. I have erected a monument more lasting than bronze. (Horace) Fama nihil est celerius. Nothing is swifter than rumor. Fama volat. Fame has wings. Mea mihi conscientia pluris est quam omnium sermo. My conscience is more to me than what the world says. "Modus operandi" (Method of work) "Ab ovo usque ad mala" (from start to finish (from horsd'oeuvre to dessert)) "Vademecum" (go with me) "Novus Ordo Seclorum" (new secular order) "Agnus Dei" (Lamb of God) annuit coeptis- God has favored us tabula rasa- a clean slate cui bono- for whose good (in whose interests)? sine qua non- necesssity Conditio sine qua non- condition, necessarily to be fulfilled caeca invidia est- envy is blind rara avis- a rare bird lapsus alumni- error made dies irae- the Day of Wrath, or Judgment Day sub rosa- under the rose (i.e. confidentially) ex cathedra- with authority Fiat lux. Let there be light (Vulgate Genesis) Qui tacet consentit. He who is silent agrees. Fides Punica. Treachery (Livy) Quid Novi. What's New? Nullum Gratuitum Prandium. There is no free lunch! Homo homini lupus. A man to a man is like a wolf Hic puer est stultissimus omnium! This boy is the stupidest of all! O di immortales! Good heavens! (uttered by Cicero on the Senate floor.) Quidquid id est, timeo Danaos et dona ferentes.(Vergil, Aeneid II.49) Whatever it is, I fear the Greeks, even bearing gifts. Quidquid id est timeo puellas et oscula dantes. Whatever it is, I fear the girls, even when they kiss. Venienti occurrite morbo.(Persius, Satires) Meet the misfortune as it comes. Forsan miseros meliora sequentur.(Virgil) For those in misery perhaps better things will follow. Multi famam, conscientiam pauci verentur.(Pliny) Many fear their reputation, few their conscience. Gaudeamus igitur (iuvenes dum sumus). Therefore, let us rejoice (while we are young) infra dignitatem. undignified (beneath (our) dignity). lapsus calumni. A slip of the pen mirabile dictu. Wonderful to say E Pluribus Unum. One from many post proelia praemia. After the battles come the rewards "qualis pater talis filius." (As is the father, so is the son; like father, like son) "Semper Ubi Sub Ubi" (always wear underwear (This is actually a joke told among students of Latin. It is an incorrect usage ("ubi" really means "where" not "wear") begging a strict translation into English.)) Maxima debetur puero reverentia. We owe the greatest respect to a child. Uva Uvam Vivendo Varia Fit. Diverse grapes, through time, grow together. "Alma Mater." (Old school (actual translation - nourishing mother) ) Ad hoc. For one reason "Alter ego." ("Other 'I'" or "Other Self") naturam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret You can drive nature out with a pitchfork but she always comes back. Literally, "Nature can be expelled with a fork, but nevertheless always returns" Studium discendi voluntate quae cogi non potest constat (Quintilian Institutio Oratoria, iii) Study depends on the good will of the student, a quality which cannot be secured by compulsion. Vacca foeda. (Stupid cow.) Die dulci fruere. (Have a nice day.) Mihi ignosce. Cum homine de cane debeo congredi. (Excuse me. I've got to see a man about a dog.) Raptus regaliter. (Royally screwed.) Ne auderis delere orbem rigidum meum! (Don't you dare erase my hard disk!) Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam. (I have a catapult. Give me all the money, or I will fling an enormous rock at your head.) Gramen artificiosum odi. (I hate Astroturf.) Furnulum pani nolo. (I don't want a toaster.) Sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare. (I think some people in togas are plotting against me.) Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione. (I'm not interested in your dopey religious cult.) Noli me vocare, ego te vocabo. (Don't call me, I'll call you.) Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules. (If I were you, I wouldn't walk in front of any catapults.) Canis meus id comedit. (My dog ate it.) Illiud Latine dici non potest. (You can't say that in Latin.) Vidistine nuper imagines moventes bonas? (Seen any good movies lately?) Nullo metro compositum est. (It doesn't rhyme.) Non curo. Si metrum non habet, non est poema. (I don't care. If it doesn't rhyme, it isn't a poem.) Fac ut gaudeam. (Make my day.) Braccae illae virides cum subucula rosea et tunica Caledonia-quam elenganter concinnatur! (Those green pants go so well with that pink shirt and the plaid jacket!) Visne saltare? Viam Latam Fungosam scio. (Do you want to dance? I know the Funky Broadway.) Utinam barbari spatium proprium tuum invadant! (May barbarians invade your personal space!) Utinam coniurati te in foro interficiant! (May conspirators assassinate you in the mall!) Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant! (May faulty logic undermine your entire philosophy!) Radix lecti. (Couch potato.) Quo signo nata es? (What's your sign?) O! Plus! Perge! Aio! Hui! Hem! (Oh! More! Go on! Yes! Ooh! Ummm!) Spero nos familiares mansuros. (I hope we'll still be friends.) Tam exanimis quam tunica nehru fio. (I am as dead as the nehru jacket.) Ventis secundis, tene cursum. (Go with the flow.) Totum dependeat. (Let it all hang out.) Te precor dulcissime supplex! (Pretty please with a cherry on top!) Fac me cocleario vomere! (Gag me with a spoon!) Te audire non possum. Musa sapientum fixa est in aure. (I can't hear you. I have a banana in my ear.) Prehende uxorem meam, sis! (Take my wife, please!) http://www.latinsayings.info/ |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.